Title
IN RE: Law Tai vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-20623
Decision Date
Apr 27, 1967
Chinese citizen Law Tai sought Philippine naturalization in 1961; denied due to interrupted residence, undisclosed past residences, and insufficient income.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20623)

Relevant Dates

  • Petition Filed: January 14, 1961
  • Judgment by Lower Court: March 24, 1962
  • Decision Date: April 27, 1967

Applicable Law

The case is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, also known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which outlines the procedures and requirements for individuals seeking naturalization in the Philippines.

Petitioner's Immigration History

Law Tai arrived in Manila on October 4, 1930. Following this, he traveled to Laoag, Ilocos Norte, where he resided for less than two years, then returned to Amoy in 1932 for a visit, before moving to Bacolod, Negros Occidental. After the war, he settled in Romblon, Romblon. Notably, he traveled back to Amoy with his wife in 1948 and visited Hong Kong as well. He married a Filipina, Salvacion T. Cerdena, on May 12, 1948, with whom he has six minor children.

State's Grounds for Appeal

The State presented three primary arguments against the lower court's ruling:

  1. Failure to File Declaration of Intention: The petitioner did not submit a required declaration of intention under the Naturalization Law despite having resided in the Philippines for over 30 years by the time of his application. The State argued that residence must be "actual and substantial," asserting that the petitioner's absences, including trips to China and Hong Kong, interrupted his continuity of residence.

  2. Incomplete Residence Information: The petitioner listed only Romblon, Romblon, as his current residence. He failed to mention his previous residences in Laoag and Bacolod. Jurisprudence dictates that not disclosing prior residences is detrimental to a naturalization application.

  3. Insufficient Income: The petitioner’s annual income of P5,499.58 was questioned, particularly given his familial responsibilities of six children and a spouse. The State argued that this income did not meet the threshold of being "lucrative" based on the cost of living standards at the time.

Court's Reasoning and Conclusion

The court found that the petitioner’s absences from the Philippines—specifically the trips taken in 1948—were not sufficiently documented to assert they were short-term stays that would not disrupt the continuity of his residence. The burden to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.