G. R.No. L-13045. July 30, 1962
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION AS FILIPINO CITIZEN. HAO SU SIONG, ALIAS RAMON CUENCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEFENDANT AND A…
REGALA, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the Government from a decree granting appellee’s petition for admission to Philippine citizenship.
On May 23,1956, Hao Su Siong alias Ramon Hao Cuenco filed with the
Court of First Instance of Leyte his petition for naturalization. No
declaration of intention was filed as required by section 5 of the
Revised Naturalization Law, the petitioner claiming exemption from
compliance therewith inasmuch as he has resided continuously in the
Philippines for more than thirty years.
The record discloses that the petitioner was born in Amoy, China,
on January 1,1901; came to Manila in 1918; went to the province of
Leyte the following year and later, in 1922, moved to Cebu; went back
to Leyte in 1924, in the town of Inopacan where he has continued to
reside up to the present.
In 1925 he went for vacation to China and there he married Ng Chen.
Six months thereafter, he brought home his wife to the Philippines.
Petitioner has twelve children by his wife, namely, Filomena,
Constancio, Manuel, Pablo, Jose, Patrick), Eulalia, Pedro, Rodolfo,
Gregorio, Corazon and Lourdes all born in Inopacan, Leyte. During the
Hearing, petitioner adduced evidence to show that his daughter Filomena
was a third year high school student in the Colegio de San Jose in Cebu
City in 1951 when she stopped studying by reason of marriage; that
Constancio was also in the.third year high school at the Inopacan
Institute in 1952 when he stopped for the same reason; that Manuel
graduated from the four-year collegiate commercial course at the
Colegio de San Jose; that Pablo graduated from high school at the
Inopacan Institute; that Jose reached only Grade II and quit schooling
because of His dullness; that Patricio is presently a second year
student at the Inopacan Institute; that Eulalia is in the second year
at the Cebu Chinese High School; that Pedro is Grade III also at the
Cebu Chinese School; that Rodolfo is also in Grade III at the Inopacan
Central School; that Gregorio is in the Grade II at the Inopacan
Central School; while Corazon and Lourdes are still below school age.
Petitioner is a merchant by occupation doing business at Inopacan,
Leyte. According to him, his annual income from this business is P1,000.
In addition to the above stated facts which petitioner sought to
establish, he and his witnesses testified as to his possession of the
other qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a
citizen of the Philippines.
The petition having been granted, the Government has1 appealed
assigning the following errors: (1) in hot finding that the petitioner
is not exempt from filing a declaration of intention; (2) in finding
that the petitioner possesses all the qualifications required by law to
become a citizen; and (3) in granting the petition.
The appeal is tenable.
Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No.
473, as amended) requires as a condition precedent to the consideration
of any petition for naturalization that petitioner file a declaration
of intention with the Solicitor General at least one year prior to the
institution of the proceedings. This requirement is dispensed with,
however, where the applicant has resided continuously in the
Philippines for at least thirty years before the filing of the
application, provided that the applicant has given primary and
secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in
private schools recognized by the Government, and not limited to any
race or nationality (sec. 6, Com. Act 473, as amended.). The same law
also provides:
“SEC. 2. Qualifications.—Subject to section
four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may
become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
* * * * * * *
“Sixth: He must have enrolled his minor children of
school age, in any of the public schools or private school recognized
by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine
history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the
school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the
Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen.
Apparently, from the above cited provisions, the education
requirement for the children is not only for petitioner’s exemption
from filing a declaration of intention, but it is also one of the
qualifications that he should meet in order to become a citizen.
After going over the record, We find that petitioner has not
satisfactorily shown that he has complied with the requirement just
mentioned. While there is testimony which tends to prove that all,
except two of his children, Corazon and Lourdes, have received primary
and secondary education, evidence is wanting to support the reason why
these two children have not gone to school. The justification advanced
by petitioner is that they were not yet of school age. If this were
true, .it is difficult to see why petitioner, during the trial, could
not say the ages of his children. This is how he testified.
The best evidence to show the respective ages of petitioner’s
children would be their birth certificates. This is also essential to
show the place or places of their births and whether or not these
children, claimed by petitioner as his own, are legitimate.
Petitioner’s failure to submit these certificates is, in the mind of
the Court, fatal.
Again, while it is stated that petitioner’s son, Manuel, is a
college graduate, it was not shown where he received his primary and
secondary education. The requirement, as already stated, is that he
should have pursued his primary and secondary education in the
Philippines, in schools where Philippine history, government and civics
are part of the curriculum.
Attention is invited to the fact that two of petitioner’s children,
Eulalia and Pedro, have been studying at the Cebu Chinese High School.
The name of the school conveys to Us the impression that it is a school
exclusively for Chinese. If this surmise is correct, then petitioner
has chosen to place these two younger children in a school not run by
Filipinos, but in one where those studying are not associated with
Filipino children. As we have insinuated in a previous case
(Garchitorena vs. Republic, 111 Phil., 590, this circumstance affects the sincerity of petitioner’s intention to become a Filipino.
We also find in the record that petitioner has an income of only
P1,000.00, yearly. We have our doubts whether this alleged income would
be lucrative enough, insofar as the Naturalization Law is concerned,
considering the size of petitioner’s family (consisting of a wife and
twelve children, only two of whom are married). In Ngo Bun Ho vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-15518, November 29, 1961, this Court has denied
naturalization to the applicant therein, a merchant whose annual income
is P3,000 and who has seven children, aside from himself, to support
(citing Lo Chicombing vs. Republic, 111 Phil., 413; and Almonte Uy vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 696.
In naturalization cases, the burden is on the applicant to prove by
competent and satisfactory evidence that he has all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications specified by law. The naturalization
law should be strictly construed, and doubts resolved, against the
applicant (Yap Joco vs. Com., 40 Off. Gaz., 1235; Cho vs. Republic, 57 Off. Gaz., [47] 8477; Karam Singh vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 622; 51 Off. Gaz., 5172. Without objection by the government, the Court may motu propio deny the application if the evidence fails to prove that all the requirements have been met. ( Arsenio G. Pe vs. Republic, L-16980, November 29, 1961.)
Wherefore, the petitioner in this case not having met all the
requirements for Philippine citizenship, the decision of the lower
court granting his application therefor is hereby reversed. Let the
petition for naturalization be dismissed, with costs against the
petitioner-appellee.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.