IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF YAP CHUN ALIAS JOSE GO TIANSE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. YAP CHUN ALIAS JOSE GO TIANSE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC …

This application for naturalization of Yap Chun (alias Jose
Go Tianse) comes to this Court for the third time is on appeal by the
Government from a decision of the Court of of First Instance.

It is uncontested that this applicant asked to be admitted as a
Filipino citizen in 1949, and that the Court of First Instance of
Misamis Occidental (Judge Patricio Ceniza presiding) granted this
petition on 27 July 1950. Upon the Government’s appeal, this Court, in
Case G. R. No. L-4177, reversed the decision, and denied the petition
without prejudice, because it was proved that applicant had a child of
school age in China, who had not been enrolled in Philippine schools,
as required by law.

In 1953, petitioner reapplied for citizenship for a second time; and
upon his representation that he had attempted to bring his son, Go Li
Pen, to the Philippines, but was not able to do so due to absence of
relations with communist China, the sarnie court and judge admitted him
to citizenship for the second time. The state again appealed; and this
Supreme Court, in G. R. No. L-8642, by decision of 30 January 1956,
once more reversed the trial court’s decision, and ordered dismissal of
the application for citizenship because it was found that the applicant
had over ten years within which, to bring his son, Go Li Pen, to the
Philippines for education in Philippine schools before relations with
the Chinese mainland were flnially interrupted; yet applicant neglected
to avail himself of the opportunity.

For the third time, with,rare persistence, applicant renewed his
effort to gain Philippine citizenship, and reapplied to the Court of
First Instance of Misamis Occidental, this time contending that
his.child, Go Li Pen, had already attained the age of majority alter
the Supreme Court’s second rejection of his application, and advancing
as a further reason that being married to a Filipina, the residence
requirement had been reduced to 5 years, which he had fulfilled with
excess. With a pertinacity fully equal to that of the applicant, Judge
Patricio Ceniza found him, for the third time, entitled to assume
Filipino citizenship, over the objections of the government attorneys.
The latter now ask that the latest decision of the court a quo be reversed and set aside.

Upon the facts on record, we have no. alternative but to reiterate
that the petition should have been denied. The applicant’s neglect to
avail himself of his opportunity to bring his son, Go Li Pen, to the
Philippines, while the son was still of school age, is by now res judicata
under our previous decisions. Such neglect constitutes proof that this
applicant had no interest in having his child, Go Li Pen, learn and
imbibe the traditions and ideals of Filipinos as well as their
democratic form of Government; and that circumstance necessarily
reflects adversely upon the bona fide intention of this
petition to embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of this
country. The disqualification noted by this Court in G. R. No. 8642 is
not one that is cured by the lapse of time.

We have elsewhere declared that compliance with the condition of
enrolling his children in our schools is required by law as evidence of
petitioner’s honest and enduring intent to assume the duties and
obligations of Filipino citizenship (Ng Sin vs. Republic, G.
R. No. L-7590, Sept. 20, 1955). Faitee to comply with the statutory
condition operates, therefore, as a disqualification for citizenship,
and is fatal to the. application for naturalization, as held in
numerous cases (gee previous decision in G. R. No. L-8642, 30 Jan.
1956).

If the petitioner was thus disqualified, the fact that the child is
now past school age can not cure the defect. The length of residence
required of this applicant becomes thus entirely irrelevant. If at any
time during his stay in the Philippines the applicant reveals by his
acts that he is not interested, or is unwilling, to assume the
obligations of Filipino citizenship, his subsequent application
becomes untenable. To grant it becomes positively dangerous to the
state.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the application for naturalization of appellee Yap Chun, alias Jose Go Tianse, of Ozamis City, Occidental Misamis, is ordered dismissed, with prejudice. Costs against petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.