G.R. No. L-32734 - IN RE: Chua Tiong Kang vs. Republic

The case involves the petition of Chua Tiong Kang seeking admission as a citizen of the Philippines.
Chua Tiong Kang was previously granted Philippine citizenship by the Court of First Instance of Isabela, Branch II, on July 22, 1963.
The Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor-appellant, filed a pending appeal challenging that decision.

Allegation of lack of a sincere desire by the petitioner to embrace Philippine customs and traditions.
Claim that petitioner failed to file a declaration of intention as required by law.
Assertion that the witnesses presented were incompetent to support the citizen petition.

The appellee, Chua Tiong Kang, did not file a brief, resulting in the case being deemed submitted for decision.
On March 1, 1982, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion.

The motion reiterated that the Republic had appealed the grant of citizenship rendered in 1963.
It was emphasized that during the pendency of this appeal, Chua Tiong Kang filed a new application for naturalization under Letter of Instructions No. 270.
Following the recommendation of the Special Committee on Naturalization, petitioner was granted citizenship on December 19, 1977, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1220.
Relevant documents including the Oath of Allegiance and the Certificate of Naturalization were attached as Annexes ‘1’ and ‘2’.

The motion prayed for the dismissal of the case on the grounds that it had become moot and academic due to the subsequent grant of naturalization.
The decision also mentioned that no costs were incurred.

Whether the case should be dismissed as moot and academic considering that petitioner had already obtained Philippine citizenship through a subsequent naturalization process.

Whether the allegations concerning the petitioner’s lack of sincere intention, failure to file the declaration of intention, and the incompetency of witnesses are sufficient to overturn the earlier decision granting citizenship.
Whether these grounds remain relevant or have been superseded by the later act of naturalization.

Whether the court should continue to decide the case given that the controversy has effectively disappeared due to the subsequent naturalization of the petitioner.