PLJ volume 37 number 1 -01- Deogracias Eufemio

A. Ban against acquisition of lands as applied tonaturaliz·ation
vases.
Scrupulous observance of the foregoing constitutional mandate
is demanded not only from Filipinos themselves, but more specially
from those desirous of acquiring Philippine citizenship by naturalization.
Thus, where the circumstances leave serious doubt as to
whether or not an applicant for naturalization really attempted to
circumvent this constitutional inhibition by purchasing a lot thru
his mother-in-law, a Filipino citizen, there being strong indications
that the said lot was purchased with money furnished by him, and
said lot being for his benefit and that of his wife, the application
must be resolved adversely against the applicant.t 62 In the case of
Tan Tiam v. R.epublic,tooit appears that on Oct. 22, 1956, the trial
court issued an order declaring petitioner qualifiedto becomea Filipino
citizen. On Oct. 7, 1958, petitioner filed a petition to 'set a
date for his oath-taking, alleging that the two-year probationary
period would expire on Oct. 22, 1958. On this latter date, petitioner
adduced evidence to show that he has complied with the provisions
of·Rep. Act No. 530 which prescribes the requisites before an alien
could be allowed to take his oath of allegiance. On cross-examination,
however, petitioner admitted that on Feb. 5, 1957, while ~till
a Chinese citizen and well within the two-year probationary period,
he entered into an agreement to sell with the Sta. Mesa Realty, Inc.
involving a parcel of land payable in installments for ten years, and
consented to the placing of his citizenship therein as "Filipino."
The court denied his petition to take the oath of allegiance; hence,
this appeal.
The issue is whether or not the execution by petitioner of the
agreement to sell and his consenting to the placing of his nationality
as "Filipino" thereon are acts "prejudicial to the interest of the
nation or contrary to any Government announced policies," pursuant
to Sec. 1 of Rep. Act No. 530.
The Court decided against petitioner-appellant. According to
the Court, the inhibition against acquisition by aliens of privah~
agricultural lands in the Philippnes embodied in the Constitution
is undoubtedly a government-announced policy. Petitioner's actuations
surrounding the executionof that document (agreement to sell)
a:r,econtrary to such a policy and have cast doubt upon his sincerity.
lie has arrogated unto himself a prized attribute of citizenship which
he has not yet possessed. Upon the execution of the document and