This article explores the intricate process of judicial naturalization in the Philippines and delves into the key factors that often lead to the dismissal of such petitions, shedding light on the complexities and nuances of this significant legal journey.
Petition for Naturalization and Judicial Naturalization
The process of judicial naturalization in the Philippines is a legal avenue through which foreign nationals can attain Filipino citizenship, granting them the same rights and privileges as native-born citizens, save for a few exceptions (i.e., holding public office).
Naturalization is a significant step that involves various legal procedures, stringent requirements, and a comprehensive evaluation by the Philippine judicial system. While the Philippines has historically welcomed individuals from diverse backgrounds seeking naturalization, the process is not without its challenges, and petitions for naturalization can be dismissed for a variety of reasons.
Reasons for Dismissed Petitions for Naturalization
We rely on cases decided by the Supreme Court, which enumerate the instances when Petitions for Naturalization have been found inadequate and therefore dismissed. Culled from these cases, are the following key reasons why Petitions for Naturalization are dismissed:
a. In the Matter of the Petition of Ng Bui Kui to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. NG BUI KUI vs. Republic G.R. No. L-11172 December 22, 1958, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to comply with the publication requirement.
b. In the matter of the petition of CELESTINO CO Y QUING REYES to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. CELESTINO CO Y QUING REYES vs. Republic G.R. No. L-10761 November 29, 1958, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to comply with the publication requirement.
c. In the matter of the petition of ROBERT CU to be admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines. ROBERT CU vs. Republic G.R. No. L-3018 July 18, 1951, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to comply with affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required.
d. In the matter of the petition of LUIS UY, to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines. LUIS UY vs. Republic G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to comply with Republic Act No. 530 – An Act Making Additional Provisions for Naturalization, particularly – non-absence from the Philippines for a period of two years.
e. IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, FELIX A. QUA alias QUA HOCK DU vs. Republic G.R. No. L-19834 October 27, 1964, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. The SC said that the record shows that in his testimony petitioner nowhere stated that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. He only testified that he knew said principles (Tsn., 107-110, 149, 1951, 153-154), naming some of them (Tsn., 151, 154). One thing is to know and another to believe in what one knows. Evidence of knowledge is no evidence of belief.
f. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEONIDAS S. TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Republic G.R. No. L-19694 March 30, 1965, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of the following:
i. the failure to state all the places where petitioner has resided. This failure is fatal. SC said the petitioner is required not only to state his present address, but even his former places of residence. In other words, what is called for to be stated here is not the legal residence or domicile but the actual residence, or places where petitioner has actually resided. The rationale is to facilitate the tracking or checking up, by private individuals or government agencies, on the different activities of petitioner, that may be material to the petition.
ii. While his character witnesses may have personal knowledge of petitioner’s behaviour during his stay in Leyte, these witnesses cannot be considered qualified to become “insurers” of his good moral character while in Manila, where he has stayed for the last three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. The rationale is that the law requires proof of proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of the alien’s residence in the Philippines, the evidence herein presented falls short of the requirement of the law.
iii. Failure to prove lucrative trade, business or profession/occupation.
g. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP ANTONIO SY vs. Republic G.R. No. L-19636 June 30, 1965, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of the following reasons:
i. Character witnesses must be able to personally vouch for applicant’s irreproachable conduct during his entire residence in the Philippines; and
ii. Applicant’s income from his profession, trade or occupation should reasonably assure that he will be an asset, not a burden, to the Philippines.
h. In the case of Republic vs. Hon. Reyes G.R. No. L-20602 December 24, 1965, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of the following reasons:
i. It is necessary for applicant to show that all his children of school age had received their primary and secondary education in government-recognized schools where Philippine history, civics and government are part of the curriculum.
ii. The provision of the law requiring an applicant for naturalization to enroll his children in recognized local schools must be complied with for the “duration of the entire period of residence required of him.” As herein applicant is invoking his alleged continuous residence for more than 30 years in order to avail of the exemption from filing the necessary declaration of intention, the same period must also be reckoned for purposes of determining whether the other requirement of the law did not cure the deficiency. The fact that all of his children were born when the applicant was already residing in the Philippines, the latter was under obligation to give to his said children the training that this country desires of its citizens, if he were to be allowed the privilege of acquiring Philippine citizenship. This, herein applicant failed to do.
iii. The applicant has been referred to as “Sotero Tan Chiong”. The petition for naturalization, however, which was duly published, appeared only in the name of “Tan Chiong”. That the applicant is known by another name which was not disclosed in the published petition is sufficient to warrant the denial of the application.
iv. While the character witnesses presented by the applicant — a lawyer and an accountant — may be reliable, responsible individuals, yet, considering that the applicant invoked his alleged residence for more than 30 years, in order to qualify as “insurers of the latter’s conduct and behavior,” it is necessary that said witnesses must have known him for the same number of years. Since, admittedly, these witnesses came to know the applicant only in 1947, they cannot be considered as “credible witnesses” within the contemplation of the Revised Naturalization Law.
i. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TANPA ONG alias PEDRO TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. PEDRO TAN vs. Republic G.R. No. L-20605 June 30, 1966, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of the failure to prove lucrative income. The SC said that the income of the petitioner as contemplated in the naturalization law is only P3,000.00 a year. Considering that he has a wife and seven children to support, this income is not sufficient to meet the high cost of living at present.
j. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. COSME GO TIAN AN alias ANA vs. Republic G.R. No. L-19833 August 31, 1966, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of the following reasons:
i. The petitioner used alias names without judicial authority, in violation of Commonwealth Act 142, and
ii. The petitioner has really never had any lucrative employment.
k. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANACLETO LIM alias LIM ENG CHUAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANACLETO LIM alias LIM ENG CHUAN vs. Republic G.R. No. L-21193 September 30, 1966, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to prove any lucrative income.
l. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM ENG YU vs. Republic G.R. No. L-20809 August 31, 1966, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of the following reasons:
i. Failure to prove lucrative trade or profession. SC said that Petitioner pretends that the net incomes appearing in his income tax returns are actually his net savings.
ii. Hence, he had to conceal the same to evade paying lawful taxes. Such conduct of petitioner shows that his moral character is not irreproachable, or as good as it should be, which disqualifies him for naturalization.
iii. Petition was not accompanied by petitioner’s certificate of arrival as required by Section 7 of our Naturalization Law; and
iv. Failure to comply with the requirement of the law that an applicant for naturalization must be vouched for by two “credible persons” who must be of good standing in the community, trustworthy, and reliable so that their words may be taken on their face value.
m. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MANUEL TO alias MANUEL TOH TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. MANUEL TO alias MANUEL TOH vs. Republic G.R. No. L-20156 December 29, 1967, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because the attesting witness is not in a position to establish the circumstance.
i. According to the Supreme Court, petitioner’s witnesses admit that their contact with him consisted of isolated meetings during vacation time, when petitioner would spend a day or two with them. Such occasional meetings are not sufficient to enable them to observe petitioner’s behavior, or to know his character, his beliefs, his social contacts and associations. In other words, they are not in a position to know whether or not petitioner has the qualification of proper and irreproachable conduct “during the entire period of his residence.”
ii. In the case of Republic vs. Huang Te Fu March 18, 2015 G.R. No. 200983, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to disclose real source of income. The SC said there is an intent to evade taxes or to conceal the true nature of his employment and the amount of his salary or income. It is concealment of the truth; an attempt to circumvent with impunity the Philippine laws.
n. In the case of Republic vs. Kerry Lao Ong G.R. No. 175430 June 18, 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because of failure to comply with requirement to possesses the qualification of a known lucrative trade. The SC said that Ong’s gross income might have been sufficient to meet his family’s basic needs, but there is simply no sufficient proof that it was enough to create an appreciable margin of income over expenses. Without an appreciable margin of his income over his family’s expenses, his income cannot be expected to provide him and his family “with adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work.
o. In the case of Republic vs. Micheal A. Hong G.R. No. 168877 March 24, 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Naturalization because the petitioner did not present testimonial or documentary evidence to prove that his witnesses are “credible persons.”
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
If you need assistance in administrative, civil and criminal litigation, or seeking naturalization in the Philippines, we can help you. Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at info@ndvlaw.com. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
