TOPIC: Naturalization Proceedings
DOCTRINE: The only right that a foreigner has, to be given the
chance to become a Filipino citizen, is that which the statute confers upon
him; and to acquire such right, he must strictly comply with all the statutory
conditions and requirements. The absence of one jurisdictional requirement is
fatal to the petition as this necessarily results in the dismissal or severance
of the naturalization process.
FACTS:
On August 22, 2007, respondent,
otherwise known as Bernabe Luna Li or Stephen Lee Keng, a Chinese national,
filed his Declaration of Intention to Become a Citizen of the Philippines
before the OSG. Almost seven months after filing his declaration of intention,
respondent filed his Petition for Naturalization before the RTC.
On April 5, 2008, respondent filed
his Amended Petition for Naturalization, wherein he alleged that he was born in
China, which granted the same privilege of naturalization to Filipinos; that he
came to the Philippines on March 15, 1988; that on November 19, 1989, he
married Cindy Sze Mei Ngar, a British national, with whom he had 4 children,
all born in Manila; that he had been continuously and permanently residing in
the country since his arrival and is currently a resident of Manila with prior
residence in Malabon; that he could speak and write in English and Tagalog;
that he was entitled to the benefit of Sec 3 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473
reducing to 5 years the requirement under Sec 2 of ten years of continuous
residence, because he knew English and Filipino having obtained his education in
Manila; and that he had successfully established a trading general merchandise
business. He attached several documentary evidence in support of his
application.
The petition was set for initial
hearing on April 3, 2009 and its notice was posted in a conspicuous place at
the Manila City Hall and was published in the Official Gazette and in the
Manila Times.
Thereafter, respondent filed the
Motion for Early Setting praying that the hearing be moved from April 3, 2009
to July 31, 2008 so he could acquire real estate properties.
The OSG filed its Opposition,
arguing that the said motion for early setting was a "clear violation of Sec
1, RA 530, which provides that hearing on the petition should be held not
earlier than 6 months from the date of last publication of the notice." The
last publication in the newspaper of general circulation was on June 13, 2008,
the earliest setting could only be scheduled 6 months later or on December 15,
2008.
The RTC granted respondent’s
application for naturalization as a Filipino citizen. And CA affirmed. The CA
held that although the petition for naturalization was filed less than 1 year
from the time of the declaration of intent before the OSG, this defect was not
fatal.
The OSG argues that "the
petition for naturalization should not be granted in view of its patent
jurisdictional infirmities, particularly because: 1) it was filed within the
one (1) year proscribed period from the filing of declaration of intention; 2)
no certificate of arrival, which is indispensable to the validity of the
Declaration of Intention, was attached to the petition; and 3) respondent’s
failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements set under CA
473." In particular, the OSG points out that the publication and posting
requirements were not strictly followed, specifically citing that: "(a)
the hearing of the petition on 15 December 2008 was set ahead of the scheduled
date of hearing on 3 April 2009; (b) the order moving the date of hearing
(Order dated 31 July 2008) was not published; and, (c) the petition was heard
within six (6) months (15 December 2008) from the last publication (on 14 July
2008).
ISSUE/S: Whether the respondent should be admitted as a Filipino
citizen despite his undisputed failure to comply with the requirements provided
for in CA No. 473, as amended – which are mandatory and jurisdictional in
character – particularly: (i) the filing of his petition for naturalization
within the one (1) year proscribed period from the date he filed his
declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen; (ii) the failure to
attach to the petition his certificate of arrival; and (iii) the failure to
comply with the publication and posting requirements prescribed by CA No. 473.
HELD: No
Section 5 of CA No. 473,47 as
amended,48 expressly states:
Section 5. Declaration of
intention. – One year prior to the filing of his petition for admission to
Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file
with the Bureau of Justice (now Office of the Solicitor General) a declaration
under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age, occupation, personal
description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance, the date of
arrival, the name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the
Philippines, and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of
making the declaration. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for
permanent residence has been established and a certificate showing the date,
place, and manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant must also state
that he has enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools
or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the
Philippines, where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his
petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish
two photographs of himself. (Emphasis supplied)
As held in Tan v. Republic,
"the period of one year required therein is the time fixed for the State
to make inquiries as to the qualifications of the applicant. If this period of
time is not given to it, the State will have no sufficient opportunity to
investigate the qualifications of the applicants and gather evidence thereon.
An applicant may then impose upon the courts, as the State would have no opportunity
to gather evidence that it may present to contradict whatever evidence that the
applicant may adduce on behalf of his petition." The period is designed to
give the government ample time to screen and examine the qualifications of an
applicant and to measure the latter’s good intention and sincerity of purpose. Stated
otherwise, the waiting period will unmask the true intentions of those who seek
Philippine citizenship for selfish reasons alone, such as, but not limited to,
those who are merely interested in protecting their wealth, as distinguished
from those who have truly come to love the Philippines and its culture and who
wish to become genuine partners in nation building.
The only exception to the
mandatory filing of a declaration of intention is specifically stated in
Section 6 of CA No. 473, to wit:
Section 6. Persons exempt from
requirement to make a declaration of intention. – Persons born in the
Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public
schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a
period of thirty years or more before filing their application, may be
naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying
with the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall be added
that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary
education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools
recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The
same shall be understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor
children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.
Unquestionably, respondent does
not fall into the category of such exempt individuals that would excuse him
from filing a declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of a
petition for naturalization. Contrary to the CA finding, respondent’s premature
filing of his petition for naturalization before the expiration of the one-year
period is fatal.
In naturalization proceedings, the
burden of proof is upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with
the requirements of the law. The opportunity of a foreigner to become a citizen
by naturalization is a mere matter of grace, favor or privilege extended to him
by the State; the applicant does not possess any natural, inherent, existing or
vested right to be admitted to Philippine citizenship. The only right that a
foreigner has, to be given the chance to become a Filipino citizen, is that
which the statute confers upon him; and to acquire such right, he must strictly
comply with all the statutory conditions and requirements. The absence of one
jurisdictional requirement is fatal to the petition as this necessarily results
in the dismissal or severance of the naturalization process.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The June 30, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
93374 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for naturalization of respondent
Li Ching Chung, otherwise known as Bernabe Luna Li or Stephen Lee Keng,
docketed as Civil Case No. 08-118905 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
49, Manila, is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
No comments:
Post a Comment