You are on page 1of 2

Case 8: Tiu San v. Republic (Pu) 4.

After said hearing, the court issued an order, dated June 3,


1953​ ​denying this petition​,
April 20, 1955​ | Concepcion, J. | Where the law does not distinguish
5. For the sole reason of Tiu San having been ​convicted​ on
April 25, ​1952​ of a v​ iolation of Municipal Ordinance No.
PETITIONER:​ Tiu San alias Angel Gomez
14​, series of 1946, of the Municipality of Lucena, Province
RESPONDENT: ​Republic of the Philippines
of Quezon — on account of his failure to remove and
transfer his lumber yard from a prohibited zone, in said
SUMMARY: ​The petition for naturalization as a Filipino citizen by
municipality — and sentenced to pay a net of ​P50.00​. The
Tiu San alias Angel Gomez was ​denied due to his being convicted for a
case is now before us on appeal taken by petitioner, from
violation of a Municipal Ordinance (No. 14) in the Municipality of
said order of June 3, 1953.
Lucena, Quezon Province – ​on account of his failure to remove and
6. Appellant maintains the negative, upon the ground
transfer his lumber yard from a prohibited zone in said
(1) that a municipal ordinance is not a
municipality.
"government promulgated rule", as contemplated in said
legal provision,
DOCTRINE:​ ​CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE mala in se and mala 
(2) that the 3rd clause thereof is inapplicable to the case at
prohibita. — Republic Act No. 530 makes no distinction between acts 
bar, the violation of the aforementioned ordinance having
mala in se, and those which are mala prohibita. Therefore, there is no 
taken place prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 530;
distinction. 
and
 
(3) that the offense in question is not malum in se, but
What is more, the expression "convicted of any offense" used in clause 
malum prohibitum.
(3) of section 1, indicates clearly that both classes are included within 
the purview thereof.
ISSUE: ​Whether or not the 3rd clause is inapplicable to the case at
bar, the violation of the aforementioned ordinance having taken place
FACTS: prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 530.
1. Petitioner Tiu San is the owner and proprietor of a lumber
yard (Tableria) located inside a prohibited zone in Lucena,
Quezon Province. HELD: No.
2. The Court of First Instance of Quezon Province rendered a ● The Court held that the 3rd clause in question applies
decision, on July 13, ​1950​, authorizing the naturalization of whenever, "within two years" from the promulgation of the
Tiu San, alias Angel Gomez. decision granting an application for naturalization, the
3. Over 2 years later​ on May 25, 1​ 953​, Tiu San led a petition applicant is "convicted of any offense". Its "commission"
praying that, after due hearing, pursuant to Republic Act No. need not take place within said period. The word
530​, the ​corresponding certificate of naturalization in his "convicted", used in the law, has a well settled meaning,
favor be issued.
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 FOR REFERENCE*: Section 1 of RA 530: ​The provisions of existing
laws notwithstanding, no petition for Philippine citizenship shall be
the nation or contrary to any Government announced
heard by the courts until after six months from the publication of the
policies", ​is barred from securing the corresponding application required by law, ​nor shall any decision granting the
certificate of naturalization, ​despite the final decision application become executory until after two years from its
granting his petition for naturalization, thus, in effect, promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing, with the
nullifying the same. The use of the word "committed" in attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied,
clause (4), when contrasted with the word "convicted" used and ​so finds, that during the intervening time the applicant has
in clause (3), ​leaves no room for doubt that the lawmaker
had in mind the aforementioned distinction between said (1) not left the Philippines,
words and pretense.
(2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession,
● The regulation violated by petitioner was a zoning
ordinance, which seeks to protect the people and their (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government
property and to promote their well being. It was promulgated promulgated rules,
by the municipal government of Lucena acting as an agent of
the national government. Hence, it partakes of the nature of a (4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary
"government promulgated rule", although limited in its to any Government announced policies."
application to said locality.
By this provision a special procedure has been established in naturalization
● The court also ruled that as the law (RA 530) did not make
cases. Unlike decisions in ordinary cases, which may be executed as
any distinction between acts mala in se and those which are soon as the same become nal, those rendered in naturalization cases,
mala prohibita, the conviction of the applicant for violation granting the petition for naturalization, are not executory until after the
of a municipal ordinance, even if the same is malum following conditions have been complied with, namely: First, two years
prohibitum, is comprehended within the statute and must have elapsed from the promulgation of the decision, and.
precluded the applicant from taking the oath. ​The phrase Second, after due hearing, the court must find that, during the
“convicted of any offense” indicates both classes of intervening time, petitioner.
crimes are included within the purview of the law. (1) "Has not left the Philippines"; (2) "Has dedicated himself
continuously to a lawful calling or profession";
(3) "Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government
promulgated rules";
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs (4) "Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation
against petitioner-appellant. So ordered. or contrary to any Government announced policies".