Facts:

The case involves Tiu To Kiat, the petitioner and appellee, who sought to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, acted as the oppositor and appellant. The events leading to this case began with Tiu To Kiat's application for naturalization, which was granted by the lower court. However, the Republic filed an appeal against the lower court's order, which denied the petition for the cancellation of Tiu To Kiat's certificate of naturalization. The appeal was based on significant jurisdictional defects in Tiu To Kiat's application, particularly the failure to disclose both his present and former places of residence, as well as non-compliance with educational requirements concerning his minor children. During the hearing, Tiu To Kiat only mentioned his current residence, neglecting to provide his previous addresses. The lower court ruled that this omission was merely an oversight and did no...

Facts:

1. Petitioner's Application for Naturalization: Tiu To Kiat filed a petition for naturalization as a Filipino citizen. His application was granted by the lower court, and he was issued a certificate of naturalization.
2. Defects in the Application: The Republic of the Philippines opposed the application, citing two major defects:
   • Failure to State Former Residences: The petition only mentioned Tiu To Kiat's current residence, omitting his former places of residence.
   • Non-Compliance with Educational Requirement: The petition failed to comply with the educational requirement for his minor children.
3. Lower Court's Ruling: The lower court denied the Republic's petition for cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, ruling that the omission of former residences was an oversight and did not indicate any ulterior motive. The court also held that the omission was cured during the hearing.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Legal Requirement of Full Disclosure: Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law mandates that a petition for naturalization must include the petitioner's present and former places of residence. This requirement is essential to ensure transparency and facilitate thorough investigation by the public and government agencies.
2. Fatal Nature of Omission: The Supreme Court emphasized that the omission of former residences is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional defect that renders the application void. This principle has been consistently upheld in numerous prior decisions.
3. Purpose of the Law: The requirement to disclose all residences is designed to prevent fraud and ensure that only qualified individuals are granted citizenship. By omitting this information, the petitioner effectively falsified his application, indicating a lack of good moral character.
4. Precedents: The Court cited over 30 prior cases where similar omissions were deemed fatal to naturalization applications, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with the law.