IN RE: Tio Tiam vs. Republic

G.R. No. L-9602
Teotimo Tio Tiam, born in Cebu to Chinese parents, sought Filipino citizenship. Despite jus soli inapplicability, he met naturalization requirements, with hearsay evidence of misconduct deemed insufficient. Citizenship granted.
naturalization eligibility hearsay evidence

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9602)

Factual Background

The petitioner was born in Cebu City of Chinese parents on January 12, 1904, and had never left the Philippines. He married a Chinese woman and fathered 11 children. He considered himself Filipino and voted in elections "held in 1964, 1949, 1951 and 1953." On October 25, 1945 he took the oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. His wife and children never registered as aliens with the Bureau of Immigration. During the Japanese occupation he joined the Cebu Guerrilla Command with the rank of second lieutenant under General Macario Peralta, Jr. He completed the first year of high school; his children attended schools recognized by the Government. He was a businessman with an average annual income of P20,000 and owned several real properties in Cebu City. He testified to a sincere desire to learn and embrace Filipino customs and ideals, to belief in the principles underlying the Constitution, to ability to speak and write English and Chinese and the Cebuano dialect, to nonaffiliation with subversive groups, to absence of convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, and to good health and mental condition. He was once investigated at Camp Murphy on charges of rebellion and multiple murder but was cleared by army authorities.

Trial Court Proceedings

The petitioner filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. During the hearing the petitioner requested leave to present evidence to show that he had acquired Filipino status long before filing the petition. The trial court granted that request, received the evidence, and concluded that the petitioner already possessed Filipino citizenship. The court therefore rendered a decision declaring him a Filipino citizen without requiring compliance with the two-year suspension period provided in Republic Act No. 530.

Government's Opposition and Evidence

On appeal the Government opposed the grant of citizenship. The Government introduced only the testimony of Mauro Magsaysay, Chief of the National Bureau of Investigation, Cebu Office, who stated that Agent No. 64 had taken a sworn statement from one Sonia Tiu alleging illicit relations by the petitioner and that Sonia Tiu was the result of such relations. Sonia Tiu did not appear to testify despite the opportunity afforded her, and the purported sworn statement was not produced as evidence.

Lower Court's Ruling and Reliance on Precedent

The trial court declared the petitioner a Filipino on the strength of the evidence presented and apparently relied upon the doctrine of jus soli as earlier articulated in Roa v. Collector of Customs (23 Phil., 315), which treated those born in the Philippines of alien parents as Filipino citizens by virtue of birth in the territory.

Effect of Tan Chong and Res Judicata

The Court observed that Roa v. Collector of Customs had been expressly overruled by Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil. 249. The Court quoted Tan Chong to the effect that the common-law principle of jus soli embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution had never been extended to the Philippine jurisdiction and that the law in force at the time of the petitioner’s birth was section 4 of the Philippine Bill (Act of July 1, 1902), as amended by the Act of March 23, 1912, which confined citizenship by birth to certain inhabitants who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and their children. The Court further noted Tan Chong’s statement that the overruling did not intend to divest those who had been declared Filipino citizens by prior judicial pronouncement because of the doctrine of res judicata; however, the petitioner had not been so adjudicated prior to that overruling and therefore could not invoke the Roa decision.

Supreme Court's Assessment of the Naturalization Claim

The Court proceeded to evaluate the petitioner’s claim under the naturalization law. It found that the petitioner had established facts showing he possessed the qualifications and lacked the disqualifications prescribed by the naturalization statutes. The Court held that the Government had not presented competent evidence to support its charge of lack of good moral character. The testimony of Mauro Magsaysay was hearsay because the alleged sworn statement of Sonia Tiu was not produced and Sonia Tiu did not testify; accordingly, that evidence was incompetent and insufficient

...continue reading