G.R. No. L-35919 - Republic vs. Presiding Judge, Branch XV, Court of 1st Instance of Rizal

On May 5, 1953, the petitioner, Simeon Lim Ham Yong, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
The petition alleged that the petitioner, who was a student at the time, sought to become a naturalized Filipino.
The trial court granted the petition despite objections regarding the petitioner’s qualification.

Simeon Lim Ham Yong was born in Cebu City on January 6, 1930, to Chinese parents.
His early education was completed in Leyte (elementary) and at the University of San Carlos in Cebu (high school).
He obtained a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the Mapua Institute.

At the time of the trial, evidence showed that the petitioner was employed by the Building Craft Construction Company, earning a salary of P200.00 per month.
The petitioner was also a stockholder (partner) in the company, holding 5% of its capital.
His employment and partnership were introduced as evidence during trial despite not being alleged in the original petition.

Simeon Lim Ham Yong had never left the Philippines except for a brief visit to China in 1934 when he was four years old.
He was pursuing further studies in commerce at the University of San Carlos.
He was single, fluent in English, Cebuano, Visayan, and Tagalog, and demonstrated a keen interest in learning and assimilating Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals.
He confirmed that he was not afflicted with any mental ailments or incurable contagious diseases and expressed belief in the principles of the Philippine Constitution.

The Solicitor General appealed the trial court’s decision on the ground that Simeon Lim Ham Yong was not qualified for naturalization at the time of the filing since he was merely a student.
It was contended that the trial court erred by allowing proof of the petitioner’s employment despite there being no such allegation in the petition.
The evidence of his occupation was introduced at trial, effectively curing any perceived deficiency in his petition.

Whether the petitioner was qualified for naturalization at the time of filing, particularly in view of the requirement to have a lucrative trade or occupation.
Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the petitioner’s employment and partnership in the absence of an allegation in the petition.

Whether the introduction of employment evidence, which was not originally pled in the petition, was properly admissible.
Whether the failure to block such evidence constitutes a waiver of its inadmissibility under the rules governing naturalization petitions.