In re: petition of Martin Ng
158 SCRA 492

FACTS: Martin Ng filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu an application for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines, in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 473. Assistant City Fiscal in representation of the Solicitor General declared that they have no ground for opposing the petition. The lower court then rendered judgment finding the petition to be well founded and adequately supported by competent evidence declaring that the petitioner is entitled to naturalization subject to subsequent compliance with the other requisites provided for in RA 530. After 2 years the petitioner filed with the court a “motion to set case for final hearing”. Motion granted and on the day scheduled petitioner presented proof of his compliance with the requirements. Unexpectedly, the Solicitor General filed an opposition on the ground of lack on petitioner’s part of lucrative business, trade or profession. However, the court overruled the opposition and declared petitioner entitled to a grant of Philippine citizenship by naturalization. Solicitor General in behalf of the Republic appealed to Supreme Court hoping to reverse the aforesaid judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Martin Ng is entitled to a grant for Naturalization.

HOLDING: Yes. Since the petitioner followed the steps and completed the requisites provided for in R.A 530 and he provided competent evidence that adequately established his lucrative income. Other grounds for opposing the petition was declared unmeritorious by the court, hence the court find no reason to modify the decision and final order challenged in this appeal therefore affirms the lower courts decision.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more