Tan Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines

A naturalization applicant’s failure to present income tax returns for years beyond the five-year retention period under Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code, when the government did not insist on their presentation, does not establish non-compliance with R.A. No. 530’s requirement of continuous dedication to a lawful calling; declining income does not by itself prove lack of a lucrative calling where the applicant lives in a low-cost area and is not shown to be a public charge. The SC dismissed the Republic’s appeal and affirmed the order allowing Tan Ching to take his oath.

Tan Ching, a Chinese national, sought admission to Philippine citizenship under the naturalization law. R.A. No. 530 requires that a decision granting naturalization not become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after a hearing where the court, with the Solicitor General or his representative present, is satisfied that the applicant complied with specified conditions during the intervening period. After the CFI of Quezon granted his petition in 1960, Tan Ching waited several years before moving to take his oath. The Republic initially opposed on abandonment grounds, but on appeal it shifted to arguing non-compliance with R.A. No. 530 and lack of qualifications.

Tan Ching, a Chinese national, filed a petition for naturalization on September 8, 1959, with the now defunct Court of First Instance of Quezon. The petition was docketed as Naturalization Case No. 74-G. Hearings were held with an assistant provincial fiscal representing the Solicitor General. In a decision dated December 20, 1960, the CFI admitted Tan Ching, then 35 years old, married to Lim Liong, a merchant and resident of Catanauan, Quezon, to Philippine citizenship as a naturalized Filipino, subject to the conditions prescribed in Republic Act No. 530. The decision stated that it would not become final and effective until after two years from its promulgation and after the CFI, in a hearing with the Solicitor General or his representative present, made findings that during the intervening two years Tan Ching (1) had not left the Philippines, (2) had continuously dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession as found in the decision, (3) had not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules, and (4) had not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. He was also required to sever forever all affiliations with associations and organizations exclusive to Chinese citizens. The decision was promulgated on January 6, 1961.

On June 3, 1970, Tan Ching filed a verified “MOTION TO DECLARE PETITIONER QUALIFIED TO TAKE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.” The August 26, 1970 Order refers to the motion as filed on June 9, 1970. The Solicitor General opposed the motion on the ground that it was filed more than nine years from the December 20, 1960 decision and that the delay was not shown to be excusable, so Tan Ching was deemed to have abandoned his petition. Hearings on the motion were held on July 9, August 4, and August 26, 1970, with Tan Ching represented by counsel and the Solicitor General by the Provincial Fiscal. Tan Ching submitted oral and documentary evidence. The evidence showed that during the intervening period from December 20, 1960, he had not left the Philippines; that he had dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling as a copra buyer; that for 1965 and 1966 he had gross income of P14,135.14 and P14,955.75, respectively; that he had not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; and that he had not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. It also appeared that he sent his children of school age to government-recognized schools where Philippine History, Government and Civics were taught; that another child, Luisito Lim Tan, was born to him after the December 20, 1960 decision; and that as a registered citizen of the Republic of China with ACR No. A-167864 and ICR No. 818869, he had secured the required permit for his change of citizenship.

Tan Ching also explained the delay in filing his motion. Although the motion was filed only on June 9, 1970, he had not abandoned the case because on several occasions he approached his former counsel, Municipal Judge Mapalad A. Nañadiego of Mulanay, Quezon, and asked him to file the corresponding pleading after the decision was rendered. After the lapse of two years from December 20, 1960, Tan Ching again approached his former counsel but was advised to secure the services of another lawyer because the former counsel did not want to incur further leaves of absence as Municipal Judge of Mulanay. The former counsel accompanied him to another lawyer whose services he did not engage because the fee charged was exorbitant. Finally, Tan Ching was able to contract the services of the Perez and Navarro Law Office to handle the case at its final stage. The Provincial Fiscal did not object to all the documentary evidence presented by Tan Ching and presented no evidence in support of the Solicitor General’s opposition.

On August 26, 1970, the CFI issued an Order finding that Tan Ching had complied with all the requirements provided for in Republic Act No. 530. The CFI confirmed the December 20, 1960 decision, promulgated on January 6, 1961, and ordered its registration in the civil registry of Catanauan, Quezon. It further ordered that after Tan Ching took his oath of allegiance in the form and substance prescribed by law, the corresponding certificate of naturalization be issued to him. On September 8, 1970, the Republic of the Philippines filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court from the August 26, 1970 Order allowing Tan Ching to take his oath of allegiance, on the ground that it was unsupported by law and the evidence.

In this appeal, the Republic no longer claimed that Tan Ching had abandoned his petition because he waited more than nine years before filing the motion to declare him qualified to take the oath. Instead, the Republic claimed that the lower court erred in allowing Tan Ching to take the oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen despite the fact that he had not complied with all the requirements provided for in Republic Act No. 530 and did not possess all the qualifications required by law for admission to Philippine citizenship. The Republic specifically argued that Tan Ching had not dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession because he presented his income tax returns for the years 1965 to 1969, inclusive, but did not submit his income tax returns from 1961 to 1964. It also claimed that the figures in his income tax returns for 1965 to 1969, showing gross income of P14,135.14, P14,955.75, P14,611.99, P8,002.91, and P14,266.55, respectively, showed annual income declining progressively and proved that Tan Ching did not have a lucrative calling.

• Tan Ching sought to take his oath of allegiance after the CFI found he had complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 530.
• He presented evidence that during the intervening period he had not left the Philippines, had continuously dedicated himself to a lawful calling as a copra buyer, had not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules, and had not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies.
• He also presented evidence that he sent his children of school age to government-recognized schools where Philippine History, Government and Civics were taught, that another child was born to him after the decision, and that he had secured the required permit for his change of citizenship as a registered citizen of the Republic of China.
• On the missing income tax returns for 1961 to 1964, the explanation was that he did not know where the previous records were and that the fiscal who represented the Solicitor General did not insist on their presentation. The fiscal himself stated that a taxpayer is required to keep his individual tax records for the past five years only, based on Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code.
• He explained the delay in filing the motion to take the oath: he repeatedly approached his former counsel, was advised to secure another lawyer, was accompanied to another lawyer whose fee was exorbitant, and finally contracted the Perez and Navarro Law Office.
• He argued that his income did not prove lack of a lucrative calling because he lived in a small town in Quezon with his family where the cost of living was low, and he had not been shown to be a public charge.

• The Republic initially opposed Tan Ching’s motion to take the oath on the ground that it was filed more than nine years from the December 20, 1960 decision and that the delay was not shown to be excusable, so Tan Ching was deemed to have abandoned his petition.
• On appeal, the Republic no longer claimed abandonment. It claimed that the lower court erred in allowing Tan Ching to take the oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen despite the fact that he had not complied with all the requirements provided for in Republic Act No. 530 and did not possess all the qualifications required by law for admission to Philippine citizenship.
• The Republic argued that Tan Ching had not dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession because he presented his income tax returns for 1965 to 1969, inclusive, but did not submit his income tax returns from 1961 to 1964.
• The Republic also argued that the figures in Tan Ching’s income tax returns for 1965 to 1969 showed annual income declining progressively, which proved that he did not have a lucrative calling.
• The Solicitor General did not discuss the second part of the assignment of error, namely, Tan Ching’s alleged lack of all the qualifications required by law for admission to Philippine citizenship.

• Non-compliance with R.A. No. 530: Whether the lower court erred in allowing Tan Ching to take the oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen despite the Republic’s claim that he has not complied with all the requirements provided for in Republic Act No. 530.
• Continuous Lawful Calling: Whether Tan Ching failed to comply with R.A. No. 530’s requirement of continuous dedication to a lawful calling or profession because he did not present income tax returns for 1961 to 1964 and his reported income from 1965 to 1969 declined progressively.
• Qualifications: Whether Tan Ching lacks all the qualifications required by law for admission to Philippine citizenship.

• Non-compliance with R.A. No. 530: No. The SC found no merit in the appeal. R.A. No. 530, Section 1, requires that no decision granting Philippine citizenship become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing with the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied that the applicant complied with the four conditions. The Republic did not question compliance with conditions Nos. 1, 3, and 4. Its only specific challenge was to the continuous lawful calling requirement.
• Continuous Lawful Calling: No. The failure to present income tax returns for 1961 to 1964 did not prove non-compliance because the fiscal who represented the Solicitor General did not insist on their presentation, and a taxpayer is required to keep individual tax records for the past five years only under Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code. The SC also rejected the claim that declining income proved lack of a lucrative calling, since Tan Ching lived in a small town in Quezon with his family where the cost of living was low and had not been shown to be a public charge.
• Qualifications: No basis shown. The Solicitor General did not discuss the second part of the assignment of error, namely, Tan Ching’s alleged lack of all the qualifications required by law for admission to Philippine citizenship. The SC dismissed the appeal.

• Non-compliance with R.A. No. 530: The SC began by reiterating that a petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest. On appeal, the entire record is opened for scrutiny whether an objection was submitted in the lower court or not, and the State is not precluded from objecting to the petitioner’s qualification even during the hearing of the petition to take the oath. The SC then examined the assignment of error, which had two parts: Tan Ching’s alleged non-compliance with all the requirements of R.A. No. 530 and his alleged lack of all the qualifications required by law. R.A. No. 530, Section 1, provides that no decision granting an application for Philippine citizenship shall become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied and so finds that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, and (4) not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. The Republic did not question compliance with conditions Nos. 1, 3, and 4. It claimed only that Tan Ching had not dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession because he presented income tax returns for 1965 to 1969 but not for 1961 to 1964.

• Continuous Lawful Calling: The SC found that Tan Ching’s failure to present his income tax returns for 1961 to 1964 was due to the fact that the fiscal who represented the Solicitor General did not insist on their presentation. The hearing on August 4, 1970, showed that Fiscal Ingente asked where the corresponding individual income tax records for the previous years from 1960 were, and Atty. Perez replied that they did not know because Tan Ching must have misplaced them. Fiscal Ingente then stated that a taxpayer is required to keep his individual tax records for the past five years only, based on Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code. The SC also addressed the Republic’s argument that the income tax returns for 1965 to 1969 showed gross income of P14,135.14, P14,955.75, P14,611.99, P8,002.91, and P14,266.55, respectively, and that these figures showed annual income declining progressively, proving that Tan Ching did not have a lucrative calling. The SC did not agree. It noted that Tan Ching lived in a small town in Quezon with his family where the cost of living was low, and that it had not been shown that he had become a public charge. Thus, the Republic’s claim of non-compliance with the continuous lawful calling requirement failed.

• Qualifications: The SC noted that there was no discussion by the Solicitor General on the second part of the assignment of error, which was Tan Ching’s alleged lack of all the qualifications required by law for admission to Philippine citizenship. With no argument or evidence presented on this point, the SC found no basis to sustain the appeal on that ground. The SC therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the August 26, 1970 Order of the lower court.

• Naturalization as a special proceeding involving public interest — A petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest. On appeal, the entire record of the case is opened for scrutiny whether an objection has been submitted in the lower court or not. The State may interpose an appeal from the decision granting the petition and is not precluded from objecting to the petitioner’s qualification during the hearing of the petition to take the oath. In this case, the SC examined the record on appeal even though the Republic had dropped its abandonment claim.

• R.A. No. 530 two-year waiting period and conditions — Under R.A. No. 530, Section 1, no decision granting an application for Philippine citizenship shall become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing with the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, and (4) not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. In this case, the Republic questioned only condition No. 2, and the SC found no violation.

• Continuous dedication to a lawful calling or profession — This requirement is not negated by the absence of income tax returns for years beyond the five-year retention period under Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code, especially when the government did not insist on their presentation. Neither does declining income by itself prove lack of a lucrative calling where the applicant lives in a low-cost area and is not shown to be a public charge. The SC applied this to Tan Ching’s work as a copra buyer and his income records for 1965 to 1969.

• Income tax record retention — A taxpayer is required to keep individual tax records for the past five years under Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code. In this case, the fiscal’s own statement supported the excuse for not presenting income tax returns for 1961 to 1964, which were beyond the five-year retention period.

• “It is now well-settled that a petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest. Accordingly, ‘in case of appeal, the entire record of the case is opened for scrutiny whether an objection has been submitted in the lower court or not. As a matter of fact, it may not only interpose an appeal from the decision granting the petition, but the State is not even precluded from objecting to petitioner’s qualification during the hearing of the latter’s petition to take the oath.’”

• “R.A. No. 530 (1950) provides in Section 1 that no decision granting an application for Philippine citizenship shall ‘become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing, with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied, and so finds, that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, (4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies.’”

• “We do not agree. The appellee lives in a small town in Quezon with his family where the cost of living is low. So far it has not been shown that he has become a public charge.”

• “WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed; the Order of the court a quo dated August 26, 1970, is hereby affirmed, no costs.”

• Cheng vs. Republic of the Philippines, 121 Phil. 415, 416-417 [1965] — Cited by the SC for the rule that a petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest, and that on appeal the entire record is opened for scrutiny whether an objection was submitted in the lower court or not, and the State is not precluded from objecting to the petitioner’s qualification during the hearing of the petition to take the oath.

• R.A. No. 530, Section 1 — Provides that no decision granting an application for Philippine citizenship shall become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing with the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, and (4) not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. The SC applied this provision by checking the Republic’s challenge to condition No. 2 and finding no non-compliance.

• Section 337, Internal Revenue Code — Requires a taxpayer to keep individual tax records for the past five years. The SC applied this provision through the fiscal’s statement during the August 4, 1970 hearing, which supported the excuse for not presenting Tan Ching’s income tax returns for 1961 to 1964.

• Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
• Makasiar (Chairman), I reserve my vote.

N/A