8

PEOPLE

Moya Lim Yao v. Commission on Immigration

Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8
February 1961. In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary
visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon,
Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her great grand
uncle, Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a
period of one month.

On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to
undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines
on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this country or within the period as
in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative might
properly allow. After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the
Philippines up to 13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya
Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated
action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and
immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an action for
injunction. At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her arrival, it was admitted
that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and speak either English or Tagalog, except for a few
words. She could not name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She
did not know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. As a result, the Court of First
Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen
Yeung appealed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage
to a Filipino citizen.

HELD: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native
born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen
of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an
alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the
moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the
naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow
of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to
go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it
should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege.

This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature intended to
treat them differently. As the laws of our country, both substantive and procedural, stand today,
there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of
a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and established so that she
may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a
transaction or business or exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that
the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of
citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born
Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or
administrative case. Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides
therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be
 9

threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to
have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as
Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962.

Po Xo Bi V. Representative

Facts: Po Yo bi a Certified Chinese citizen who was born in the Philippines filed a petition for
naturalization in the CFI of Ilo-ilo, when approved and was scheduled for hearing, he moved to
amend his petition twice which resulted in the moving of the said hearing also twice. In his
second amended petition it contained inserted allegations, however there was no stating that
he is a person of good moral character. Upon the moving of his hearing to a final date of Feb.
26, 1962 with orders of publication in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general
circulation in Iloilo, however the second Amended Petition itself was not published in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, but instead o nly the amended notice of
petition was published. It was also not posted in a public and conspicuous place in the Office of
the Clerk of Court or in the building where such office is located. After trial, the RTC granted the
petition and declared Po Bi as a Filipino citizen, but in his amended application, it failed to file a
statement of intent to be naturalized as a Filipino citizen by birth€ in th is country which is the
Philippines. On 30 October 1963 the Solicitor General filed a motion to reconsider the above
decision contending that petitioner is not exempt from filing his declaration of intention, and has
not complied with Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization La w, and that his witnesses are not
competent and credible persons within the cont emplation of law. On December 1, 1965
petitioner filed a motion alleging therein that more than t wo (2) years had elapsed since the
decision and that he has complied with all th e conditions and requisites, he then prays that
after hearing, the decision be e xecuted and he be allowed to take his oath as a Filipino citizen.

Issues: 1. Was the second amended petition published in accordance with Section 9 of the
Revised Naturalization Law, which requires that the petition itself must be pub lished?
2. Did the petitioner successfully stated that he is of good moral character by stating in his
amended petition “€ I believe in the principles underlying the Philipp ine Constitution. I have
conducted myself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of my
residence in the Philippines in my relations with the constituted Government as well as with the
community in which I am living” ?
3. € Did he sufficiently complied with the requirement of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization
Law that the petitioner must allege therein his present and forme r places of residence?
4. Was he exempt from declaring his intention?
5. Did the petitioner successfully renounced his Chinese Citizenship?

Held:. 1. The second amended petition was not published. Neither were the original and the
amended petitions. What the Office of the Clerk of Court did was to prepare and
issue€ notices€ of the petition. This is not sufficient compliance€ contemplated in the legal
provision. It was said notices alone which were ordered to be publishe d and posted. Non-
compliance with the requirements thereof,€ constitutes a fatal de fect. As a consequence, the
lower court acquired no jurisdiction to hear this ca se and the decision appealed from is null and
void.
 10

2. Petitioner did not specifically allege that he is of good moral character whi ch is one of the
requirements of Citizenship as provided for in Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law. He
did not refer to it in any manner in the answers he gave. It has been held that to establish the
qualifications that the applica nt must be of good moral character and must have conducted
himself in a proper a nd irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence, the
characte r witnesses must be in a position to testify on the character and good moral con duct
of the applicant during the entire period of the latter's stay in the Phili ppines as provided by
law. In the instant case, the witnesses utterly failed to do that.
3. No, all his allegations were isufficent in specifications. He stated that he studied in Manila,
but did not revealed where in Manila he resided during that time. He also declared that he was
in Manila from June 1939-1942 but just gave h is address as “Salazar Street” which is very
vague where in Manila this street is. T here is no way it would facilitate the checking up on the
activities of the peti tioner which are material to the proceedings. Petitioner deliberately
suppressed vital information to make it extremely difficult for the government authorities to
locate his place of residence and check on his activities therein during suc h time. Besides, a
careful reading of the transcripts of the testimony of petiti oner on direct examination reveals
that petitioner did not mention Salazar Stree t at all. Thus, on this ground alone, his petition
should fail.
4. Petitioner was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Upon carefu l reading of his
claim for exemption, the facts revealed that it he cannot claim exemption from filing the
declaration of intention. 5. Revised Naturalization Law requires that before a certificate of
naturalizati on is issued, the petitioner shall renounce "absolutely and forever all allegian ce and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty." It is s ettled that a Chinese
national cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the Philipp ines unless he has complied with the
laws of Nationalist China requiring previou s permission of its Minister of Interior for the
renunciation of his nationality .€ In the instant case, petitioner did not offer any evidence to
prove that he obta ined such permission.