G.R. No. L-26290. November 29, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS A FILIPINO CITIZEN. TAN AN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.
CASTRO, J.:
On October 1, 1964, after more than two years had elapsed from
the rendition of a decision (naturalization case N-56) by the Court of First
Instance of Southern Leyte admitting Tan An as a
Filipino citizen, the latter filed a motion to be allowed to take the oath of
allegiance. The court, presided by Judge
Numeriano G. Estenzo,
denied the motion in its decision of October 26, 1964.
Hence this appeal.
Tan An had been residing in the
Philippines continuously for more than 10 years prior to the filing on September
28, 1960 of his application for naturalization.
He is employed as purchasing agent and representative of the Jaime Sy Store owned by his brother, at Cabalian,
Southern Leyte, receiving a monthly salary of P200,
plus free board and lodging worth P100 a month.
His wife and four minor children who were born in Hongkong
reside in the latter city; the children of school age are enrolled in an
elementary school thereat. All efforts
exerted by the petitioner to bring his wife and children to the Philippines
have proved futile.
For three fundamental reasons, the denial by the court a quo
of the petitioner’s motion to be allowed to take the oath of allegiance as a
citizen of the Philippines must be sustained.
1.
With the prevailing high cost of
living and the low buying power of the Philippine peso, taken together with
the fact that the petitioner has five dependents, his monthly income of P200 obviously
cannot be considered lucrative such as would qualify him for admission as a
citizen of the Philippines.[1]
2.
With regard to his inability to
enroll his minor children of school age in a public or private school
recognized by the Department of Education, where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught as part of the curriculum, this Court has consistently
held that this is an effective bar to the acquisition
of Filipino citizenship.[2]
“It is the policy of the Philippine Government to have
the children of prospective citizens learn and imbibe the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipinos as well as their democratic form of
government. The fact that all of the
children of school age of the applicant are in China or otherwise outside the
Philippines is no valid excuse or reason for non-compliance with this
requirement.”[3]
3.
On cross-examination by the
provincial fiscal at the hearing on his petition for oath-taking, the
petitioner admitted that although he stated in his petition that he was
residing in Maasin, Leyte
at the time of the filing thereof, he actually never resided there. This tendency to pervert the truth
inescapably belies his claim that he has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is affirmed, at
petitioner’s cost.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and
Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
[1] Uy vs. Republic, L-19578, Oct. 27, 1964; Yap Bun Pin
vs. Republic, L-19577, Oct. 30, 1964; Tio Tee Chai vs. Republic, L-19112, Oct. 30, 1964; Ong So vs. Republic, L-20145, June 30, 1965; Chin Bok vs. Republic, L-19111, June 22, 1965; Tan Chong vs. Republic, L-19914, June 23, 1965.
[2] Ang Yee Koc Sengkee vs. Republic,
L-3863, Dec. 27, 1951; Ang-lo vs. Republic,
L-5104, April 29, 1953.
[3] Yap
Chin vs. Republic, L-4177, May
29, 1953; Dy Chuan Tiao
vs. Republic, L-6430, Aug. 31,
1954; Si Ne vs.
Republic, L?16828, May 30, 1962.