GR L 4802; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4802; April 29, 1953
KIAT CHUN TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Kiat Chun Tan filed a petition for naturalization on June 14, 1948. He was born in Umus Mataha, Cagayan de Sulu, on January 15, 1920. He filed an amended petition on January 31, 1951, alleging exemption from filing a declaration of intention due to having resided continuously in the Philippines for 30 years. The hearing on the petition was held on February 3, 1951. The trial court granted the petition, concluding the petitioner was not required to file a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines of a Filipino mother and could have elected Philippine citizenship under the Constitution, despite his failure to do so within the prescribed period. The Government appealed, contending the petitioner failed to comply with the legal prerequisite of filing a declaration of intention one year prior to his petition.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, Kiat Chun Tan, was exempt from filing a declaration of intention to become a citizen prior to his petition for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and denied the petition for naturalization. The petitioner was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Under the law, exemption applies only if the petitioner: (1) was born in the Philippines and received primary and secondary education in public or recognized schools not limited to any race or nationality, or (2) resided continuously in the Philippines for 30 years or more prior to filing the petition. The petitioner, born on January 15, 1920, had not resided for 30 years by June 14, 1948. Although born in the Philippines, he did not receive secondary education. His amended petition filed in 1951, alleging 30 years of residence, could not be considered as it was not published according to law and the hearing was held only three days after its filing, violating the six-month waiting period under Republic Act No. 530 . The Court also rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the petitioner’s potential right to elect citizenship under the Constitution exempted him, holding that his failure to exercise that right placed him under the same requirements as others, with the law making no such distinction.