IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEE NG LEN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEE NG LEN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPE…

Lee Ng Len versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is an appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the petition of Lee Ng Len, a Chinese national born in the Philippines, for admission to Philippine citizenship. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and now asks the Supreme Court to reverse the grant. The case matters because it is the classic teaching vehicle on the strictness of the Naturalization Law: on the exemption from the declaration of intention, on the fatal consequences of an incomplete petition, and on the settled rule that naturalization is a privilege, never a right, so that no presumption runs in favor of the applicant.

Procedural History

Lee Ng Len filed his petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Republic opposed it. After trial, the court below rendered judgment declaring the petitioner qualified to be admitted to citizenship of the Republic of the Philippines. The State appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered the petition for naturalization dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.

Facts

Lee Ng Len was born in Pasay City on the fourth of July, 1939, to a Chinese father and a Chinese mother. He resided continuously in the Philippines from birth, living in Pasay City and in various places in Manila, up to the time he filed his application for naturalization. He completed his primary education at the Manila Chinese School and his secondary education at the University of Santo Tomas, and was then studying in his fifth year at the Mapua Institute of Technology.

In his petition, the applicant did not file a declaration of intention, evidently claiming exemption from that requirement as a Philippine-born applicant. He also stated only his then dwelling place at Herran, Manila, and disclosed only the name Lee Ng Len. The record, however, showed that he had previously resided at other addresses in Manila and in Pasay City, and that his school certificates bore the names Allen N. Lee and Allen Ng Lee.

Because the petition revealed only the name Lee Ng Len, the publication of the notice of hearing carried that name exclusively. The trial court, apparently treating the absence of any effective opposition as sufficient, granted the petition. The State appealed, assigning these defects and others discussed in the brief of the Solicitor General.

Issues

• Whether or not the applicant was exempt from the duty to file a declaration of intention under the Naturalization Law.
• Whether or not the applicant's failure to specify in his application all his former places of residence was fatal to the petition.
• Whether or not the applicant's failure to disclose the other names by which he was also known tainted the publication of his application and warranted reversal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of the Naturalization Law, as discussed in the decision, governs the exemption from the declaration of intention, and it provides:

That to be exempt from filing declarations of intention Philippine-born applicants must, inter alia, have received both primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.

This is the provision on which the first issue turns: the applicant must show that both his primary and secondary schooling were in schools not limited to any race or nationality, and the burden of that showing rests on him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Section 6 requires that a Philippine-born applicant have received both primary and secondary education in public schools or in schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. There was no evidence that the Manila Chinese School, where the petitioner received his primary education, was not limited to any race or nationality. On the contrary, its very name imported that it was limited to Chinese students. The Court stressed that the burden lies on the applicant to satisfactorily show that all the schools he attended are not limited to students of a particular nationality but are regularly attended by a sizeable number of Filipino students from whom he could have imbibed Filipino customs and traditions. Having failed to file his declaration of intention in due time, his application was erroneously granted.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to specify in the application all former places of residence, in addition to the present dwelling place, is fatal. The evidence affirmatively showed that the applicant had previously resided at other addresses in Manila and in Pasay City, which he did not disclose.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure or refusal to disclose that the petitioner was also known as Allen N. Lee and Allen Ng Lee, as shown in his school certificates, tainted the publication of his petition, which carried only the name Lee Ng Len. Such a failure warrants reversal. Because of these defects, reversal was justified without need of going into the other defects discussed in the brief of the Solicitor General.

The Court closed with a reminder on the nature of the privilege:

It seems opposite to emphasize once more that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that our Republic can confer upon an alien.

It added that in matters of privilege no presumption can be indulged in favor of a claimant, and that the absence of opposition will not excuse a court from the obligation of scrutinizing attentively the record of naturalization cases and seeing to it that the letter and spirit of the law are satisfied beyond any doubt.

Doctrine

First, a Philippine-born applicant is exempt from filing a declaration of intention only if he received both his primary and secondary education in public schools or in schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The burden of proving this rests on the applicant, and a school whose very name imports that it is limited to one nationality does not satisfy the requirement.

Second, the application must state all former places of residence in addition to the present dwelling place; the omission is fatal to the petition.

Third, the applicant must disclose all other names by which he is known, because publication under a single name, when other names are used, taints the publication of the application and warrants reversal.

Fourth, naturalization is a privilege, not a right. No presumption is indulged in favor of the claimant, and the absence of opposition does not relieve the court of its duty to scrutinize the record and to require strict compliance with the letter and spirit of the law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court below and ordered the petition for naturalization dismissed, with costs against the petitioner Lee Ng Len.

Remember This

Memorize the line that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges the Republic can confer upon an alien, so that no presumption is indulged in favor of the applicant and strict compliance with the law is required. Examiners use this case for the exemption from the declaration of intention under Section 6 of the Naturalization Law, and for the fatal defects of omitting former residences and undisclosed aliases from the petition and its publication.