TodayisMonday,September19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.183110October7,2013

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,
vs.
AZUCENASAAVEDRABATUGAS,Respondent.

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

"ItisuniversallyacceptedthataState,inextendingtheprivilegeofcitizenshiptoanalienwifeofoneofitscitizens
couldhavehadnootherobjectivethantomaintainaunityofallegianceamongthemembersofthefamily."1

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari2assailstheMay23,2008Decision3oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)G.R.CVNo.
00523,whichaffirmedtheJanuary31,2005Decision4oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch29,Zamboanga
delSurthatgrantedthePetitionforNaturalization5ofrespondentAzucenaSaavedraBatuigas(Azucena).

FactualAntecedents

OnDecember2,2002,AzucenafiledaPetitionforNaturalizationbeforetheRTCofZamboangadelSur.Thecase
wasdocketedasNaturalizationCaseNo.03001andraffledtoBranch29ofsaidcourt.

Azucena alleged in her Petition that she believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution that she
hasconductedherselfinaproperandirreproachablemannerduringtheperiodofherstayinthePhilippines,aswell
as in her relations with the constituted Government and with the community in which she is living that she has
mingledsociallywiththeFilipinosandhasevincedasinceredesiretolearnandembracetheircustoms,traditions,
andidealsthatshehasallthequalificationsrequiredunderSection2andnoneofthedisqualificationsenumerated
in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (CA473)6 that she is not opposed to organized government nor is
affiliated with any association or group of persons that uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments that she is not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or
assassination for the success and predominance of mens ideas that she is neither a polygamist nor believes in
polygamythatthenationofwhichsheisasubjectisnotatwarwiththePhilippinesthatsheintendsingoodfaithto
becomeacitizenofthePhilippinesandtorenounceabsolutelyandforeverallallegianceandfidelitytoanyforeign
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to China and that she will reside continuously in the
PhilippinesfromthetimeofthefilingofherPetitionuptothetimeofhernaturalization.

AfterallthejurisdictionalrequirementsmandatedbySection97ofCA473hadbeencompliedwith,theOfficeofthe
SolicitorGeneral(OSG)fileditsMotiontoDismiss8onthegroundthatAzucenafailedtoallegethatsheisengaged
in a lawful occupation or in some known lucrative trade. Finding the grounds relied upon by the OSG to be
evidentiaryinnature,theRTCdeniedsaidMotion.9Thereafter,thehearingforthereceptionofAzucenasevidence
wasthensetonMay18,2004.10

NeithertheOSGnortheOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorappearedonthedayofthehearing.Hence,Azucenas
counselmovedthattheevidencebepresentedexparte,whichtheRTCgranted.Accordingly,theRTCdesignated
its Clerk of Court as Commissioner to receive Azucenas evidence.11 During the November 5, 2004 exparte
hearing,norepresentativefromtheOSGappeareddespiteduenotice.12

BorninMalangas,ZamboangadelSuronSeptember28,1941toChineseparents,13Azucenahasneverdeparted
the Philippines since birth. She has resided in Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur from 19411942 in Margosatubig,
ZamboangadelSurfrom19421968inBogoCityforninemonthsinIpil,ZamboangadelSurfrom19691972in
Talisayan,MisamisOrientalfrom19721976and,inMargosatubig,ZamboangadelSur,thereafter,uptothefilingof
herPetition.

AzucenacanspeakEnglish,Tagalog,Visayan,andChavacano.Herprimary,secondary,andtertiaryeducationwere
taken in Philippine schools,i.e., Margosatubig Central Elementary School in 1955,14 Margosatubig Academy
in1959,15andtheAteneodeZamboangain1963,16graduatingwithadegreeinBachelorofScienceinEducation.
ShethenpracticedherteachingprofessionatthePaxHighSchoolforfiveyears,intheMarianAcademyinIpilfor
twoyears,andinTalisayanHighSchoolinMisamisOrientalforanothertwoyears.17

In1968,attheageof26,AzucenamarriedSantiagoBatuigas18(Santiago),anaturalbornFilipinocitizen.19 They
havefivechildren,namelyCynthia,Brenda,Aileen,DennisEmmanuel,andEdselJames.20Allofthemstudiedin
Philippinepublicandprivateschoolsandareallprofessionals,threeofwhomarenowworkingabroad.21

After her stint in Talisayan High School, Azucena and her husband, as conjugal partners, engaged in the retail
business of and later on in milling/distributing rice, corn, and copra. As proof of their income, Azucena submitted
theirjointannualtaxreturnsandbalancesheetsfrom2000200222andfrom20042005.23Thebusinessnameand
thebusinesspermitsissuedtothespousesstore,AzucenasGeneralMerchandising,areregisteredinSantiagos
name,24andheisalsotheNationalFoodAuthoritylicenseefortheirriceandcornbusiness.25Duringtheirmarital
union,theBatuigasspousesboughtparcelsoflandinBarrioLombog,Margosatubig.26

Toprovethatshehasnocriminalrecord,AzucenasubmittedclearancesissuedbythePhilippineNationalPoliceof
ZamboangadelSurProvincialOfficeandbytheNationalBureauofInvestigation.27ShealsopresentedherHealth
ExaminationRecord28declaringherasphysicallyandmentallyfit.

TofurthersupportAzucenasPetition,SantiagoandwitnessesEufemioMiniaoandIrineoAlfarotestified.

RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

On January 31, 2005, the RTC found that Azucena has amply supported the allegations in her Petition. Among
theseareherlackofaderogatoryrecord,hersupportforanorganizedgovernment,thatsheisinperfecthealth,
that she has mingled with Filipinos since birth and can speak their language, that she has never had any
transgressions and has been a law abiding citizen, that she has complied with her obligations to the government
involvingherbusinessoperations,andthatthebusinessandrealpropertiessheandSantiagoownprovidesufficient
incomeforherandherfamily.Thus,theRTCruled:

xxxInsum,thepetitionerhasallthequalificationsandnoneofthedisqualificationstobeadmittedascitizenofthe
PhilippinesinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheNaturalizationLaw.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisherebygranted.

SOORDERED.29

In its Omnibus Motion,30 the OSG argued that the exparte presentation of evidence before the Branch Clerk of
CourtviolatesSection10ofCA473,31asthelawmandatespublichearinginnaturalizationcases.

RejectingthisargumentinitsMarch21,2005Order,32theRTCheldthatthepublichasbeenfullyapprisedofthe
naturalizationproceedingsandwasfreetointervene.TheOSGanditsdelegate,theProvincialProsecutor,arethe
onlyofficersauthorizedbylawtoappearonbehalfoftheState,whichrepresentsthepublic.Thus,whentheOSG
was furnished with a copy of the notice of hearing for the reception of evidence exparte, there was already a
sufficientcompliancewiththerequirementofapublichearing.

TheOSGthenappealedtheRTCjudgmenttotheCA,33contendingthatAzucenafailedtocomplywiththeincome
requirementunderCA473.TheOSGmaintainedthatAzucenaisnotallowedundertheRetailTradeLaw(Republic
Act No. 1180) to engage directly or indirectly in the retail trade. Hence, she cannot possibly meet the income
requirement.Andevenifsheisallowed,herbusinessisnota"lucrativetrade"withinthecontemplationofthelawor
thatwhichhasanappreciablemarginofincomeoverexpensesinordertoprovideforadequatesupportintheevent
of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work. The OSG likewise disputed Azucenas claim that she owns real
propertybecausealiensareprecludedfromowninglandsinthecountry.

The OSG further asserted that the exparte proceeding before the commissioner is not a "public hearing" as ex
partehearingsareusuallydoneinchambers,withoutthepublicinattendance.ItclaimedthattheStatewasdenied
itsdayincourtbecausetheRTC,duringtheMay18,2004initialhearing,immediatelyallowedtheproceedingtobe
conductedexpartewithoutevengivingtheStateampleopportunitytobepresent.
Azucenacounteredthatalthoughsheisateacherbyprofession,shehadtoquittohelpintheretailbusinessofher
husband,andtheywereabletosendalltheirchildrentoschool.34Itishighlyunlikelythatshewillbecomeapublic
chargeassheandherspousehaveenoughsavingsandcouldevenbegivensufficientsupportbytheirchildren.
Shecontendedthatthedefinitionof"lucrativetrade/income"shouldnotbestrictlyappliedtoher.Beingthewifeand
followingFilipinotradition,sheshouldnotbetreatedlikemaleapplicantsfornaturalizationwhoarerequiredtohave
theirown"lucrativetrade."

AzucenadeniedthatthehearingforherPetitionwasnotmadepublic,asthehearingbeforetheClerkofCourtwas
conductedinthecourtssessionhall.Besides,theOSGcannotclaimthatitwasdenieditsdayincourtasnotices
havealwaysbeensenttoit.Hence,itsfailuretoattendisnotthefaultoftheRTC.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

IndismissingtheOSGsappeal,35theCAfoundthatAzucenasfinancialconditionpermitsherandherfamilytolive
with reasonable comfort in accordance with the prevailing standard of living and consistent with the demands of
humandignity.Itsaid:

Consideringthepresenthighcostofliving,whichcostoflivingtendstoincreaseratherthandecrease,andthelow
purchasing power of the Philippine currency, petitionerappellee, together with her Filipino husband, nonetheless,
was able to send all her children to college, pursue a lucrative business and maintain a decent existence. The
Supreme Court, in recent decisions, adopted a higher standard in determining whether a petitioner for Philippine
citizenshiphasalucrativetradeorprofessionthatwouldqualifyhim/herforadmissiontoPhilippinecitizenshipand
towhichpetitionerhassuccessfullyconvincedthisCourtofherabilitytoprovideforherselfandavoidbecominga
publicchargeorafinancialburdentohercommunity.xxx36

AsfortheotherissuetheOSGraised,theCAheldthattheRTChadcompliedwiththemandateofthelawrequiring
noticetotheOSGandtheProvincialProsecutorofitsscheduledhearingforthePetition.

Thus, the instant Petition wherein the OSG recapitulates the same arguments it raised before the CA, i.e., the
allegedfailureofAzucenatomeettheincomeandpublichearingrequirementsofCA473.

OurRuling

ThePetitionlacksmerit.

Underexistinglaws,analienmayacquirePhilippinecitizenshipthrougheitherjudicialnaturalizationunderCA473
or administrative naturalization under Republic Act No. 9139 (the "Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000"). A
thirdoption,calledderivativenaturalization,whichisavailabletoalienwomenmarriedtoFilipinohusbandsisfound
underSection15ofCA473,whichprovidesthat:

"anywomanwhoisnowormayhereafterbemarriedtoacitizenofthePhilippinesandwhomightherselfbelawfully
naturalizedshallbedeemedacitizenofthePhilippines."

Under this provision, foreign women who are married to Philippine citizens may be deemed ipso facto Philippine
citizensanditisneithernecessaryforthemtoprovethattheypossessotherqualificationsfornaturalizationatthe
timeoftheirmarriagenordotheyhavetosubmitthemselvestojudicialnaturalization.Copyingfromsimilarlawsin
theUnitedStateswhichhassincebeenamended,thePhilippinelegislatureretainedSection15ofCA473,which
thenreflectsitsintenttoconferFilipinocitizenshiptothealienwifethruderivativenaturalization.37

Thus,theCourtcategoricallydeclaredinMoyYaLimYaov.CommissionerofImmigration:38

Accordingly, We now hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating otherwise notwithstanding, that under
Section15ofCommonwealthAct473,analienwomanmarryingaFilipino,nativebornornaturalized,becomesipso
factoaFilipinaprovidedsheisnotdisqualifiedtobeacitizenofthePhilippinesunderSection4ofthesamelaw.
Likewise,analienwomanmarriedtoanalienwhoissubsequentlynaturalizedherefollowsthePhilippinecitizenship
ofherhusbandthemomenthetakeshisoathasFilipinocitizen,providedthatshedoesnotsufferfromanyofthe
disqualificationsundersaidSection4.39

AsstatedinMoyYaLimYao,theprocedureforanalienwifetoformalizetheconfermentofFilipinocitizenshipisas
follows:

Regarding the steps that should be taken by an alien woman married to a Filipino citizen in order to acquire
Philippinecitizenship,theprocedurefollowedintheBureauofImmigrationisasfollows:Thealienwomanmustfile
apetitionforthecancellationofheraliencertificateofregistrationalleging,amongotherthings,thatsheismarried
toaFilipinocitizenandthatsheisnotdisqualifiedfromacquiringherhusbandscitizenshippursuanttoSection4of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. Upon the filing of said petition, which should be accompanied or
supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioner and her Filipino husband to the effect that the petitioner does not
belong to any of the groups disqualified by the cited section from becoming naturalized Filipino citizen x x x, the
Bureau of Immigration conducts an investigation and thereafter promulgates its order or decision granting or
denyingthepetition.40

Records however show that in February 1980, Azucena applied before the then Commission on Immigration and
Deportation(CID)forthecancellationofherAlienCertificateofRegistration(ACR)No.03070541byreasonofher
marriagetoaFilipinocitizen.TheCIDgrantedherapplication.However,theMinistryofJusticesetasidetheruling
of the CID as itfoundnosufficientevidencethatAzucenashusbandisa Filipino citizen42 as only their marriage
certificatewaspresentedtoestablishhiscitizenship.

HavingbeendeniedoftheprocessintheCID,AzucenawasconstrainedtofileaPetitionforjudicialnaturalization
basedonCA473.WhilethiswouldhavebeenunnecessaryiftheprocessattheCIDwasgrantedinherfavor,there
is nothing that prevents her from seeking acquisition of Philippine citizenship through regular naturalization
proceedings available to all qualified foreign nationals. The choice of what option to take in order to acquire
Philippine citizenship rests with the applicant. In this case, Azucena has chosen to file a Petition for judicial
naturalizationunderCA473.ThefactthatherapplicationforderivativenaturalizationunderSection15ofCA473
wasdeniedshouldnotpreventherfromseekingjudicialnaturalizationunderthesamelaw.Itistoberemembered
thatherapplicationattheCIDwasdeniednotbecauseshewasfoundtobedisqualified,butbecauseherhusbands
citizenshipwasnotproven.Evenifthedenialwasbasedonothergrounds,itisproper,inajudicialnaturalization
proceeding,forthecourtstodeterminewhetherthereareinfactgroundstodenyherofPhilippinecitizenshipbased
onregularjudicialnaturalizationproceedings.

As the records before this Court show, Santiagos Filipino citizenship has been adequately proven. Under judicial
proceeding,SantiagosubmittedhisbirthcertificateindicatingthereinthatheandhisparentsareFilipinos.Healso
submittedvotersregistration,landtitles,andbusinessregistrations/licenses,allofwhicharepublicrecords.Hehas
always comported himself as a Filipino citizen, an operative fact that should have enabled Azucena to avail of
Section 15 of CA473. On the submitted evidence, nothing would show that Azucena suffers from any of the
disqualificationsunderSection4ofthesameAct.

However,thecasebeforeusisaPetitionforjudicialnaturalizationandisnotbasedonSection15ofCA473which
wasdeniedbythethenMinistryofJustice.Thelowercourtwhichheardthepetitionandreceivedevidenceofher
qualificationsandabsenceofdisqualificationstoacquirePhilippinecitizenship,hasgrantedthePetition,whichwas
affirmed by the CA. We will not disturb the findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to hear and
scrutinize the evidence presented during the hearings on the Petition, as well as determine, based on Azucenas
testimony and deportment during the hearings, that she indeed possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualificationsforacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenship.

TheOSGhasfiledthisinstantPetitiononthegroundthatAzucenadoesnothavethequalificationrequiredinno.4
ofSection2ofCA473asshedoesnothaveanylucrativeincome,andthattheproceedinginthelowercourtwas
notinthenatureofapublichearing.TheOSGhadtheopportunitytocontestthequalificationsofAzucenaduring
theinitialhearingscheduledonMay18,2004.However,theOSGortheOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorfailedto
appear in said hearing, prompting the lower court to order ex parte presentation of evidence before the Clerk of
CourtonNovember5,2004.TheOSGwasalsonotifiedoftheexparteproceeding,butdespitenotice,againfailed
toappear.TheOSGhadraisedthissameissueattheCAandwasdeniedforthereasonsstatedinitsDecision.We
find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA on this issue. Neither should this issue further delay the grant of
Philippinecitizenshiptoawomanwhowasbornandlivedallherlife,inthePhilippines,anddevotedallherlifeto
the care of her Filipino family. She has more than demonstrated, under judicial scrutiny, her being a qualified
Philippinecitizen.Onthesecondissue,wealsoaffirmthefindingsoftheCAthatsincethegovernmentwhohasan
interestin,andtheonlyonewhocancontest,thecitizenshipofaperson,wasdulynotifiedthroughtheOSGandthe
ProvincialProsecutorsoffice,theproceedingshavecompliedwiththepublichearingrequirementunderCA473.

No.4,Section2ofCA473providesasqualificationtobecomeaPhilippinecitizen:

4.HemustownrealestateinthePhilippinesworthnotlessthanfivethousandpesos,Philippinecurrency,ormust
haveknownlucrativetrade,profession,orlawfuloccupation.

Azucenaisateacherbyprofessionandhasactuallyexercisedherprofessionbeforeshehadtoquitherteaching
jobtoassumeherfamilydutiesandtakeonherroleasjointprovider,togetherwithherhusband,inordertosupport
herfamily.Together,husbandandwifewereabletoraisealltheirfivechildren,providedthemwitheducation,and
have all become professionals and responsible citizens of this country. Certainly, this is proof enough of both
husband and wifes lucrative trade. Azucena herself is a professional and can resume teaching at anytime. Her
profession never leaves her, and this is more than sufficient guarantee that she will not be a charge to the only
countryshehasknownsincebirth.
Moreover,theCourtacknowledgedthatthemainobjectiveofextendingthecitizenshipprivilegetoanalienwifeisto
maintainaunityofallegianceamongfamilymembers,thus:

Itis,therefore,notcongruentwithourcherishedtraditionsoffamilyunityandidentitythatahusbandshouldbea
citizenandthewifeanalien,andthatthenationaltreatmentofoneshouldbedifferentfromthatoftheother.Thus,it
cannotbethatthehusbandsinterestsinpropertyandbusinessactivitiesreservedbylawtocitizensshouldnotform
partoftheconjugalpartnershipandbedeniedtothewife,northatsheherselfcannot,throughherowneffortsbut
forthebenefitofthepartnership,acquiresuchinterests.Onlyinrareinstancesshouldtheidentityofhusbandand
wifeberefusedrecognition,andwesubmitthatinrespectofourcitizenshiplaws,itshouldonlybeintheinstances
wherethewifesuffersfromthedisqualificationsstatedinSection4oftheRevisedNaturalizationLaw.43

WearenotunmindfulofprecedentstotheeffectthatthereisnoproceedingauthorizedbythelaworbytheRulesof
Court,forthejudicialdeclarationofthecitizenshipofanindividual.44"Suchjudicialdeclarationofcitizenshipcannot
evenbedecreedpursuanttoanalternativeprayerthereforinanaturalizationproceeding."45

ThiscasehoweverisnotaPetitionforjudicialdeclarationofPhilippinecitizenshipbutratheraPetitionforjudicial
naturalizationunderCA473.Inthefirst,thepetitionerbelievesheisaFilipinocitizenandasksacourttodeclareor
confirm his status as a Philippine citizen. In the second, the petitioner acknowledges he is an alien, and seeks
judicialapprovaltoacquiretheprivilegeofbecomingaPhilippinecitizenbasedonrequirementsrequiredunderCA
473.Azucenahasclearlyproven,understrictjudicialscrutiny,thatsheisqualifiedforthegrantofthatprivilege,and
thisCourtwillnotstandinthewayofmakingherapartofatrulyFilipinofamily.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No.
00523whichaffirmedtheJanuary31,2005DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch29,ZamboangadelSurthat
grantedthePetitionforNaturalization,ishereby

AFFIRMED. Subject to compliance with the period and the requirements under Republic Act No. 530which
supplementstheRevisedNaturalizationLaw,letaCertificateofNaturalizationbeissuedtoAZUCENASAAVEDRA
BATUIGASaftertakinganoathofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines.Thereafter,herAlienCertificateof
Registrationshouldbecancelled.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIortheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
Footnotes

1(sourcetextunreadable)

2(sourcetextunreadable)

3(sourcetextunreadable)

4(sourcetextunreadable)

5(sourcetextunreadable)

6THEREVISEDNATURALIZATIONLAW.ApprovedJune17,1939.

7 Sec. 9. Notificationandappearance.Immediatelyuponthefilingofa petition, it shall be the duty of the

clerkofcourttopublishthesameatthepetitionersexpense,onceaweekforthreeconsecutiveweeks,inthe
Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner
resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and
conspicuousplaceinhisofficeorinthebuildingwheresaidofficeislocated,settingforthinsuchnoticethe
name, birthplace, and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the
namesofthewitnesseswhomthepetitionerproposestointroduceinsupportofhispetition,andthedateof
the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last
publicationofthenotice.Theclerkshall,assoonaspossible,forwardcopiesofthepetition,thesentence,the
naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the Interior (now Office of the
President), the Bureau of Justice (now Solicitor General), the Provincial Inspector of the Philippine
Constabularyoftheprovince(nowProvincialCommander)andtheJusticeofthePeaceofthemunicipality
whereinthepetitionerresides(nowtheRTC).

8Records,pp.2428.

9SeeOrderdatedNovember19,2003,id.at3334.

10SeeOrderdatedMarch9,2004,id.at3940.

11SeeOrderdatedMay18,2004,id.at43.

12Id.at51.

13Id.at21.

14Id.at61.Azucenatestifiedthatshehasnoelementaryschoolrecordsastheschoolwasalreadyburned
downinthe80s.

15Id.at101102.

16Id.at103107.

17Id.at70.

18Id.at95.

19Id.at140142.

20Id.at96100.

21ExceptforCynthia,whostudiedelementaryinTalisayanCentralElementarySchool,theBatuigaschildren
studied in Margosatubig Central Elementary School. The female children all went to Pax High School in
Margosatubig,whileEdselwenttoSanCarlosBoysSchool.Dennissfirsttwoyearsofhighschoolwerein
PaxHighSchool,whilethelasttwowereinSanCarlosBoysSchool.AllofthemaregraduatesofUniversity
ofSanCarlos.CynthiagraduatedwithadegreeinBSCommercein1988,Aileengraduatedwithadegreein
BSNursingin1993,whileDennisgraduatedwithadegreeinBSArchitecturein1995.Asofthetimeofthe
filing of the petition, Cynthia was residing in the Netherlands, Aileen was working in Texas, USA, while
Dennis, who then worked in Singapore, was already working in Michigan, USA. On the other hand, the
remaining children remained in the Philippines, Brenda obtained her BS Pharmacy degree in 1992and BS
PhysicalTherapyin1994,andEdselgothisBSComputerEngineeringdegreein1998.

22Records,pp.144159.

23CArollo,pp.3549.

24Records,pp.119121.

25Id.at122124.

26Id.at125,127and129.OnecertificateoftitleisregisteredinSantiagosname,whiletheothertwolotsare
separatelytitledintheirsonsEdselandDennis.

27Id.at135and137.

28Id.at136.

29Id.at176.

30Id.at177181.

31 Section 10. Hearing of the petition. No petition shall be heard within the thirty days preceding any
election.Thehearingshallbepublic,andtheSolicitorGeneral,eitherhimselforthroughhisdelegateorthe
provincial fiscal concerned, shall appear on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Philippines at all the
proceedingsandatthehearing.If,afterthehearing,thecourtbelieves,inviewoftheevidencetaken,thatthe
petitionerhasallthequalificationsrequiredby,andnoneofthedisqualificationsspecifiedinthisActandhas
compliedwithallrequisiteshereinestablished,itshallorderthepropernaturalizationcertificatetobeissued
andtheregistrationofthesaidnaturalizationcertificateinthepropercivilregistryasrequiredinsectiontenof
ActNumberedThreethousandsevenhundredandfiftythree.

32Records,pp.182183.

33CArollo,pp.1522.

34Id.at3133.

35Supranote3.

36Id.at65.

37MoyYaLimYaov.CommissionerofImmigration,supranote1at829.

38Id.

39Id.at839.

40Id.at855856.Citationsomitted.

41Records,pp.138139.

42Id.at133134.

43MoyYaLimYaov.CommissionerofImmigration,supranote1at837838.Citationsomitted.

44AsmentionedinMoyYaLimYao,"xxxwhatsubstituteistherefornaturalizationproceedingstoenable
thealienwifeofaPhilippinecitizentohavethematterofherowncitizenshipsettledandestablishedsothat
shemaynothavetobecalledupontoproveiteverytimeshehastoperformanactorenterintoatransaction
orbusinessorexercisearightreservedonlytoFilipinos?Thereadyanswertosuchquestionisthatasthe
laws of our country, both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure x x x. The
rulingthatthereisnoactionforjudicialdeclarationofanindividualscitizenshiphasbeenheldinthecasesof
Tanv.Republic,107Phil.632(1960),Tanv.Republic,113Phil.391(1961),andSoriav.Commissionerof
Immigration,147Phil.186(1971).
 45WongSauMeiv.Republic,148Phil.26,31(1971).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation