REPUBLIC vs LI CHING CHUNG

ISSUE/S: Whether the respondent should be admitted as a Filipino citizen

G.R. No. 197450 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
TOPIC: Naturalization Proceedings
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
DOCTRINE: The only right that a foreigner has, to be given the chance to
his certificate of arrival; and (iii) the failure to comply with the publication
become a Filipino citizen, is that which the statute confers upon him; and
and posting requirements prescribed by CA No. 473.
to acquire such right, he must strictly comply with all the statutory
conditions and requirements. The absence of one jurisdictional
HELD: No
requirement is fatal to the petition as this necessarily results in the
Section 5 of CA No. 473,47 as amended,48 expressly states:
dismissal or severance of the naturalization process.
Section 5. Declaration of intention. – One year prior to the filing of his
FACTS:
petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine
On August 22, 2007, respondent, otherwise known as Bernabe Luna Li or
citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice (now Office of the Solicitor
Stephen Lee Keng, a Chinese national, filed his Declaration of Intention to
General) a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention to
Become a Citizen of the Philippines before the OSG. Almost seven
become a citizen of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name,
months after filing his declaration of intention, respondent filed his Petition
age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign
for Naturalization before the RTC.
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
On April 5, 2008, respondent filed his Amended Petition for Naturalization,
residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration. No
wherein he alleged that he was born in China, which granted the same
declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent residence has
privilege of naturalization to Filipinos; that he came to the Philippines on
been established and a certificate showing the date, place, and manner of
March 15, 1988; that on November 19, 1989, he married Cindy Sze Mei
his arrival has been issued. The declarant must also state that he has
Ngar, a British national, with whom he had 4 children, all born in Manila;
enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private
that he had been continuously and permanently residing in the country
schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines,
since his arrival and is currently a resident of Manila with prior residence
where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed
in Malabon; that he could speak and write in English and Tagalog; that he
as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence
was entitled to the benefit of Sec 3 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473
in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
reducing to 5 years the requirement under Sec 2 of ten years of
naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish two
continuous residence, because he knew English and Filipino having
photographs of himself. (Emphasis supplied)
obtained his education in Manila; and that he had successfully established
a trading general merchandise business. He attached several
As held in Tan v. Republic, "the period of one year required therein is the
documentary evidence in support of his application.
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
The petition was set for initial hearing on April 3, 2009 and its notice was
sufficient opportunity to investigate the qualifications of the applicants and
posted in a conspicuous place at the Manila City Hall and was published
gather evidence thereon. An applicant may then impose upon the courts,
in the Official Gazette and in the Manila Times.
as the State would have no opportunity to gather evidence that it may
present to contradict whatever evidence that the applicant may adduce on
Thereafter, respondent filed the Motion for Early Setting praying that the
behalf of his petition." The period is designed to give the government
hearing be moved from April 3, 2009 to July 31, 2008 so he could acquire
ample time to screen and examine the qualifications of an applicant and to
real estate properties.
measure the latter’s good intention and sincerity of purpose. Stated
otherwise, the waiting period will unmask the true intentions of those who
The OSG filed its Opposition, arguing that the said motion for early setting
seek Philippine citizenship for selfish reasons alone, such as, but not
was a "clear violation of Sec 1, RA 530, which provides that hearing on
limited to, those who are merely interested in protecting their wealth, as
the petition should be held not earlier than 6 months from the date of last
distinguished from those who have truly come to love the Philippines and
publication of the notice." The last publication in the newspaper of general
its culture and who wish to become genuine partners in nation building.
circulation was on June 13, 2008, the earliest setting could only be
scheduled 6 months later or on December 15, 2008.
The only exception to the mandatory filing of a declaration of intention is
specifically stated in Section 6 of CA No. 473, to wit:
The RTC granted respondent’s application for naturalization as a Filipino
citizen. And CA affirmed. The CA held that although the petition for
Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of
naturalization was filed less than 1 year from the time of the declaration of
intention. – Persons born in the Philippines and have received their
intent before the OSG, this defect was not fatal.
primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by
the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, and those who
The OSG argues that "the petition for naturalization should not be granted
have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or
in view of its patent jurisdictional infirmities, particularly because: 1) it was
more before filing their application, may be naturalized without having to
filed within the one (1) year proscribed period from the filing of declaration
make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other
of intention; 2) no certificate of arrival, which is indispensable to the
requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall be added that which
validity of the Declaration of Intention, was attached to the petition; and 3)
establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education
respondent’s failure to comply with the publication and posting
to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by
requirements set under CA 473." In particular, the OSG points out that the
the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The same shall
publication and posting requirements were not strictly followed, specifically
be understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor children of
citing that: "(a) the hearing of the petition on 15 December 2008 was set
an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the
ahead of the scheduled date of hearing on 3 April 2009; (b) the order
Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.
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)
Unquestionably, respondent does not fall into the category of such exempt
from the last publication (on 14 July 2008).
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.