G.R. No. L-22619. March 28, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EMMANUEL LAI TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, EMMANUEL LAI, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.
BARREDO, J.:
Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
its Naturalization Case No. 43024, denying the petition of Emmanuel Lai to take
his oath as a naturalized citizen of the Philippines after the probationary
period of two (2) years from the issuance of the original decision of the
court a quo in the said proceeding declaring petitioner eligible
for naturalization.
The antecedent facts are not disputed.
On May 3,
1961, the Court of
First Instance of Manila, the Honorable Judge Conrado
M. Vasquez, presiding, rendered a decision in the above-mentioned case,
declaring petitioner-appellant eligible for naturalization. A little more than two (2) years thereafter,
after the lapse of the probationary period provided for by Republic Act 530,
petitioner filed the petition aforesaid for purposes of showing that he was
ready and qualified to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic. This was opposed by the Solicitor General on
the grounds, inter alia, (1) that petitioner failed
to apply or register his daughter, Felisa Lai,[1] “within thirty days after the birth of
the child”, in violation of the “regulations governing registration
of aliens in accordance with the Alien Registration Act of 1950”; and (2)
that petitioner “failed to allege in his petition all his previous addresses
and residences”, in violation of Section 7 of the Naturalization Law. After due hearing, the trial court, the
Honorable Judge Jose N. Leuterio, then presiding, issued the order of
October 17, 1963 appealed from, denying appellants petition to take his oath on
the ground that his failure to register his daughter within thirty days from
the birth of the child was a violation of government promulgated rules and
regulations. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the order but the same was denied by the trial court in its
subsequent order of January 7, 1964; hence, the instant appeal from said orders.
The appeal is completely
devoid of merit. On the basis of
established precedents, Judge Leuterio was perfectly right in sustaining the Solicitor Generals opposition to
petitioner-appellant’s motion to take his oath as a naturalized
citizen. This Court has ruled beginning
way back in 1960, that in naturalization cases the failure of a petitioner to
comply with his obligation to register his wife and children with the Bureau of
Immigration as required by the Alien Registration Act, constitutes failure
to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relation with
our Government,[2]
a ground sufficient for the dismissal or disapproval of his petition for
naturalization. That rule has been
reiterated’ in subsequent cases.[3]
We concede that in the earlier
case[4]
heavily relied upon by herein
appellant, this Court held that failure of an applicant for naturalization to register
his wife and children with the Immigration Office is not of such gravity as to
disallow his petition, but this Court has likewise pointed out that such
earlier view had been abandoned. Thus,
in Koa Heng vs. Republic, supra, it was so
declared to dispel any further doubt on this point, viz:
“Petitioner also admits that at least one of his seven
children is not registered, pursuant to the Alien Registration Act, with the
Bureau of Immigration ….. Appellee however invokes Chay Guan Tan vs. Republic, L-9682, April 23, 1957, to the effect that failure of an
applicant to register his wife and child with the immigration Office, as
aliens, is not of such gravity as to disallow his petition for naturalization. Suffice it to state that at the time petitioner,
applied for naturalization this Court has subsequently ruled that such
failure to register constitutes reproachable and improper conduct which
precludes naturalization (Co vs. Republic, L-12150, May 26, 1960;
reiterated in Chung Hong vs. Republic, L-17391, November 29, 1962).”
[Underscoring supplied]
Petitioner-appellant
would try to distinguish his case from the above-cited precedents in the
circumstance that while there, this Court dealt with the failure to register
in violation of law, Republic Act 562, otherwise known as the Alien
Registration Act of 1950; here, there is merely a case of “late
registration of a newly born
child” which, appellant argues, is a minor infraction of an
implementing regulation of the Commissioner of Immigration. Overlooked by appellant is the fact that his
having registered his daughter tardily on April 26, 1963, or even March 1, 1963, as he contends, involved not only a
violation of immigration regulations but the Alien Registration Act.
The rules and regulations of the Government violated by him read
as follows:
“Article 1 – PERSONS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AND FINGER-PRINTED.-
x x x x x x
“(5) Every parent or legal guardian or any alien child, born
in the Philippines
subsequent to June 17, 1950,
and who will remain in the Philippines
for thirty days or longer, must apply for the registration of such child within
thirty days after the birth of the child.”[5]
On the other hand, the
pertinent provisions of the Alien Registration Act violated are these:
“Section 1. Aliens residing in the Philippines shall,
within thirty days from the approval of this Act, apply for registration, in
the case of those residing in. the City of Manila, at the Bureau of
Immigration, and in the case of those residing in other localities, at the office
of the city or municipal treasurers, or at any other office designated by the
President.
“The parent or legal guardian of an alien who is less than
fourteen years of age, shall have the duty of registering such alien: x x x.
x x x x x x
“Section 10. Every alien subject to the provisions of this
Act shall, within the first sixty
days of every calendar year, report in person to the Bureau of
Immigration, if residing in the City of Manila, or to the Office of the
respective city or municipal treasurer, if residing in another locality, or to
the Chief Immigration Officer should there be an immigration office in such
locality. x x x The parent or legal guardian of
an alien who is less than fourteen years of age, have the duty of reporting for
such alien: x x
x.” [Underscoring Ours]
That is not all. As he registered his daughter for the first
time only on April or March of 1963, the inevitable conclusion is that
he did not report for her within the first sixty days of January 1962 and, if
in fact, the registration was April, again within the same period in 1963.
It cannot be validly said
then that appellant committed only a minor infraction of a regulation. In truth, he violated the Alien Registration
Act in two ways. It is obvious that such violations constitute
improper and reproachable conduct in his relation with the Government, which
renders him disqualified to be a naturalized citizen.
With this view We take, this case should write finis to any further move of
appellant to be a naturalized citizen
of the Philippines, his infirmity above-pointed being
incurable. Accordingly, We find it
unnecessary to make any express finding as regards the other ground
interposed by the Solicitor General in his opposition – that petitioner also
failed to allege in his petition
all his previous addresses and residences – which, albeit fatal, is technical
and curable in character.
WHEREFORE, We find herein petitioner-appellant not
qualified to be a naturalized citizen of the Philippines and the denial of his petition
to be allowed to take the oath as such by the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against said petitioner-appellant.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
[1]
Felisa Lai was born on November 19, 1961 or during the probationary period of two years, i.e.,
subsequent to the date of issuance of the original decision but prior to the
filing of the petition to take the oath.
[2]
Benjamin
Co vs. Republic, L-12150, May 26, 1960.
[3]
Chung
Hong vs. Republic, L-17391, November 29, 1962; Lu Beng
Ga vs. Republic, L-18005, November 29, 1963; Lim Guan vs.
Republic, L-20622, January 31, 1966; Koa Heng vs.
Republic, L-21079, February 28, 1966.
[4]
Chay Guan Tan vs. Republic, L-9682, April 23, 1957.
[5]
Regulations governing the Registration of Aliens in accordance with the Alien
Registration Act of 1950, issued June
21, 1950 (Espina, Immigration & Alien
Registration Laws of the Philippines, 1965 Ed., p. 83).