Tiu San vs. Republic

Tiu San vs. Republic 4.
"Has not committed any act

96 Phil. 817 prejudicial to the interest of the
nation or contrary to any
Government announced policies".
Facts:
TIU SAN alias ANGEL GOMEZ petitioned
Appellant maintains the negative, upon
to be admitted as a citizen of the
Philippines.
the ground
(1) that a municipal ordinance is not a

After appropriate proceedings, the Court "government promulgated rule", as
of First Instance of Quezon Province contemplated in said legal
rendered a decision, on July 13, 1950, provision,
authorizing the naturalization of Tiu (2) that the third clause thereof is
San, alias Angel Gomez.
inapplicable to the case at bar, the
violation of the aforementioned
Over two years later, or on or about May ordinance having taken place prior
25, 1953, Tiu San filed a petition praying to the enactment of Republic Act
that, after due hearing, pursuant to No. 530; and
Republic Act No. 530, the corresponding (3) that the offense in question is not
certificate of naturalization in his favor be malum in se, but malum
issued. After said hearing, the court prohibitum.
issued an order, dated June 3, 1953
denying this petition, Tiu San having Issue:
been convicted on April 25, 1952 of a whether appellant's conviction for

violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, violation of municipal ordinance No. 14,
series of 1946, of the Municipality of series of 1946, of Lucena, Quezon, is an
Lucena, Province of Quezon—on infringement of the third clause of section
account of his failure to remove and 1 of Republic Act No. 530.
transfer his lumber yard from a

prohibited zone, in said municipality— Ruling:
and sentenced to pay a fine of P50.00. Yes. The conviction contemplates a
The case is now before us on appeal violation of RA 530.
taken by petitioner, from said order of
June 3, 1953.
1.The first argument is untenable, for
municipal corporations perform dual
According to R.A. no 530 The petition for
functions, one governmental and
filipino citizenship should satisfy the
another corporate. In the exercise of
following:
1. "Has not left the Philippines";

its governmental powers and duties,
2. "Has dedicated himself municipal corporations are agencies
continuously to a lawful calling or of the national government. When
profession";
engaged in corporate activities,
3. “Has not been convicted of any municipal corporations are on the
offense or violation of same plane as any private corporation.
Government promulgated rules"; The regulation violated by petitioner
was a zoning ordinance, which seeks
to protect the people and their mala in se, and those which are mala
property and to promote their well prohibita. What is more, the expression
being. It was enacted in the exercise "convicted of any offense" used in clause
of the police power, which, essentially, (3) of section 1, indicates clearly that
is political and governmental in nature. both classes are included within the
In other words, it was promulgated by purview thereof.
the municipal government of Lucena

acting as an agent of the national
government. Hence, it partakes of the Dispositive portion:
nature of a "government promulgated Wherefore, the order appealed from is

rule", although limited in its application to hereby affirmed, with costs against
said locality.
petitioner-appellant. So ordered.
2. The second pretense is clearly without

merit, for the third clause in question
applies whenever, "within two years"
from the promulgation of the decision
granting an application for naturalization,
the applicant is "convicted of any
offense". Its "commission" need not
take place within said period. The
word "convicted", used in the law, has
a well settled meaning, clear and
distinct from that of "committed".
Indeed, pursuant to the fourth clause of
section 1 of Republic Act No. 530, one
who has "committed any act prejudicial
to the interest of the nation or contrary to
any Government announced policies", is
barred from securing the corresponding
certificate of naturalization, despite the
final decision granting his petition for
naturalization, thus, in effect, nullifying
the same. The use of the' word
"committed" in clause (4), when
contrasted with the word "convicted"
used in clause (3), leaves no room for
doubt that the lawmaker had in mind the
aforementioned distinction between said
words and pretense.
3. The REPUBLIC ACT 530

CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE mala in se
and mala prohibita. Republic Act No.
530 makes no distinction between acts

Tiu San vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiu San vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiu San vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiu San vs. Republic 4.

"Has not committed any act

(1) that a municipal ordinance is not a

been convicted on April 25, 1952 of a whether appellant's conviction for

transfer his lumber yard from a

1. "Has not left the Philippines";

the municipal government of Lucena

nature of a "government promulgated Wherefore, the order appealed from is

2. The second pretense is clearly without

3. The REPUBLIC ACT 530

You might also like