FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-8550. January 25, 1956.]
In the matter of the petition of TIU PENG HONG to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines. TIU PENG HONG, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for appellant.
Florencio L. Albino for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; WHEN MAY AN APPLICANT, IN WHOSE FAVOR A JUDGMENT HAD BEEN RENDERED, BECOME FILIPINO. — An applicant for naturalization becomes a Filipino only upon the taking of his oath of allegiance and not before. He does not acquire Philippine nationality by reason of the fact that the decision granting his application for naturalization has become final.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN APPLICANT‘S CHILDREN MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM THE NATURALIZATION OF THEIR FATHER. — Children who were minors when the decision granting the application for naturalization of their father was rendered and become final, but who were of age when said decision became executory and the father took his oath of allegiance, over two years later, are not entitled to share the benefits of said decision.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN APPLICANT‘S CHILDREN MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM THE NATURALIZATION OF THEIR FATHER. — Children who were minors when the decision granting the application for naturalization of their father was rendered and become final, but who were of age when said decision became executory and the father took his oath of allegiance, over two years later, are not entitled to share the benefits of said decision.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
On July 30, 1952, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 11304 thereof, entitled "In the matter of the petition of Tiu Peng Hong to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines," granting the petition for naturalization of said Tiu Peng Hong. Over two years later, or, to be exact, on September 27, 1954, the latter asked that a date be set for the reception of evidence pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530. As prayed for, said court received evidence on October 9, 1954, on which date it, thereafter, issued an order declaring that petitioner had complied with the requirements of said Act and, accordingly, authorizing him to take the corresponding oath of allegiance, as a naturalized citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner did so on said date, whereupon the corresponding certificate of naturalization in his favor was issued. Ten days later, or on October 19, 1954, he filed a motion praying that his daughter, Tiu Siok Lu — who was a minor at the time of the rendition of said decision of July 30, 1952, but had become of age on March 15, 1953 — "be allowed to take her own oath of allegiance, as a confirmation of her intention to continue and retain her inchoate Philippine citizenship, which was impressed upon her when herein petitioner filed his application for naturalization on June 9, 1950." Despite the Solicitor General’s opposition thereto, the court, by an order dated October 23, 1954, granted said motion. The Solicitor General now seeks a review of said order of October 23, 1954.
Petitioner maintains that he became a naturalized citizen of the Philippines upon the expiration of 30 days from notice of the decision of July 30, 1952, copy of which was received by the Solicitor General on August 9, 1952, in view of the failure of the Government to appeal therefrom within said period, and that, inasmuch as his daughter Tiu Siok Lu, born in Amoy, China, on March 15, 1932, was on or about September 9, 1952, a minor, she then automatically became a citizen of the Philippines, pursuant to section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, reading:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age."chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We find no merit in the theory of the petitioner.
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 530 provides that, after finding that the applicant for naturalization, in whose favor a judgment had been rendered, has complied with the requirements of section 1 of said statute, "the order of the court granting citizenship shall be registered and the oath provided by existing laws shall be taken by the applicant, whereupon, and not before, he will be entitled to all the privileges of a Filipino citizen." It is clear, therefore, that an applicant for naturalization becomes a Filipino only upon the taking of his oath of allegiance and not before. In other words, he does not acquire Philippine nationality, by reason of the fact that the decision granting his application for naturalization has become final. The taking of the oath of allegiance, in conformity with said section 2, determines the beginning of his new status as a regular member of our citizenry.
Secondly, pursuant to section 1 of Republic Act No. 530, no decision granting an application for naturalization shall become executory "the provisions of existing laws notwithstanding . . . until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing, . . . is satisfied and so finds that, during the intervening time, the applicant" has complied with the conditions specified in said provision. In other words, the decision in favor of petitioner’s application did not become executory until October 9, 1954, when the lower court issued its order of such date finding that petitioner had complied with said requirements of Republic Act No. 530. At that time, Tiu Siok Lu was over 22 years of age, and, hence, she is not entitled to the benefits of section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, according to which, upon the naturalization of her father, his minor children dwelling in the Philippines automatically become citizens thereof.
Thirdly, the theory of petitioner and appellee would lead to the result that, whereas petitioner herein did not become a citizen of the Philippines until October 9, 1954, his daughter — whose claim to citizenship is based upon the naturalization of her father — would become a citizen of the Philippines on or about September 9, 1952, or over 2 years before her father had been naturalized. Hence, the accessory would come into existence long before the principal, upon which it is wholly dependent, had become a legal reality.
It is obvious, therefore, that petitioner’s contention cannot be sustained; that the lower court erred in authorizing the taking of oath by Tiu Siok Lu; and that, accordingly, the order appealed from, dated October 23, 1954, should be, as it is hereby, set aside and reversed, with costs against petitioner and appellee. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Petitioner maintains that he became a naturalized citizen of the Philippines upon the expiration of 30 days from notice of the decision of July 30, 1952, copy of which was received by the Solicitor General on August 9, 1952, in view of the failure of the Government to appeal therefrom within said period, and that, inasmuch as his daughter Tiu Siok Lu, born in Amoy, China, on March 15, 1932, was on or about September 9, 1952, a minor, she then automatically became a citizen of the Philippines, pursuant to section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, reading:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age."chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We find no merit in the theory of the petitioner.
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 530 provides that, after finding that the applicant for naturalization, in whose favor a judgment had been rendered, has complied with the requirements of section 1 of said statute, "the order of the court granting citizenship shall be registered and the oath provided by existing laws shall be taken by the applicant, whereupon, and not before, he will be entitled to all the privileges of a Filipino citizen." It is clear, therefore, that an applicant for naturalization becomes a Filipino only upon the taking of his oath of allegiance and not before. In other words, he does not acquire Philippine nationality, by reason of the fact that the decision granting his application for naturalization has become final. The taking of the oath of allegiance, in conformity with said section 2, determines the beginning of his new status as a regular member of our citizenry.
Secondly, pursuant to section 1 of Republic Act No. 530, no decision granting an application for naturalization shall become executory "the provisions of existing laws notwithstanding . . . until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing, . . . is satisfied and so finds that, during the intervening time, the applicant" has complied with the conditions specified in said provision. In other words, the decision in favor of petitioner’s application did not become executory until October 9, 1954, when the lower court issued its order of such date finding that petitioner had complied with said requirements of Republic Act No. 530. At that time, Tiu Siok Lu was over 22 years of age, and, hence, she is not entitled to the benefits of section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, according to which, upon the naturalization of her father, his minor children dwelling in the Philippines automatically become citizens thereof.
Thirdly, the theory of petitioner and appellee would lead to the result that, whereas petitioner herein did not become a citizen of the Philippines until October 9, 1954, his daughter — whose claim to citizenship is based upon the naturalization of her father — would become a citizen of the Philippines on or about September 9, 1952, or over 2 years before her father had been naturalized. Hence, the accessory would come into existence long before the principal, upon which it is wholly dependent, had become a legal reality.
It is obvious, therefore, that petitioner’s contention cannot be sustained; that the lower court erred in authorizing the taking of oath by Tiu Siok Lu; and that, accordingly, the order appealed from, dated October 23, 1954, should be, as it is hereby, set aside and reversed, with costs against petitioner and appellee. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
