IN THE MATTER PETITION OF LIM CHUY TIAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  LIM CHUY TIAN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MOVANT-APPELLANT.

On October 30, 1961
the Court of First instance of Manila,
in naturalization case 45705, rendered judgment finding that the petitioner Lim
Chuy Tian has “all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for Philippine
citizenship,” and, consequently, granted his petition for
naturalization.  On November 5, 1963 he moved that he be allowed to
take his oath as Filipino citizen and issued a naturalization certificate.  Pursuant to the lower Court’s order of February 21, 1964, he took his oath
on March 31, and on the same day the clerk of court issued him the corresponding
naturalization certificate.

On March 28, 1968
the Republic of the Philippines
filed with the court a motion for the cancellation of Lim’s naturalization
certificate, on the ground that he obtained it “fraudulently and
illegally.” Specifically the Government maintained (1) that he had failed
to enroll his children of school age in public or private schools recognized by
the Government where Philippine history, civics and government are taught or
prescribed as part of the curriculum, during the entire period of his residence
prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization; and (2) that he
violated an announced policy of the Government requiring visitors to leave the
country after their authorized stay has expired, by allowing his wife and two
children – all temporary visitors – to remain in the Philippines, even after
the expiration of the period of their authorized stay.

In answer to the motion, Lim asserted that he did not obtain his
naturalization certificate fraudulently and illegally, because the salient
facts concerning him, his wife and children “were all known to the
Solicitor General who represented the Government” during the hearing on
his petition for naturalization, and the Government Could have raised at the
said hearing the two points now posed against him, instead of waiting for two
years after he was issued the naturalization certificate.

On July 1, the lower court denied the motion to cancel the
naturalization certificate.

Hence this appeal by the Government.

Firmly entrenched in
our jurisprudence are the doctrines that (1) a judgment directing the issuance
of a certificate of naturalization is a mere grant by the Government of a
political privilege to an alien, (2) that the certificate is subject to cancellation if it was
obtained illegally and fraudulently, and (3) neither estoppel
nor res judicata
will bar an action for cancellation of the certificate.^[1]

Lim Chuy Tian,
from Amoy, China,
emigrated to the Philippines,
arriving at the port of Manila
on December 8, 1931.  He left for Amoy in
1947, married Tan Soat Kiat
alias Chan Shoet Kit, and stayed there with
her for about 10 months.  In 1957 he went
to Hongkong to visit his wife, and stayed there with
her for about 6 months.  Of this marriage,
two children were born, namely, Lim Lily who was born in Amoy,
China, on March 31, 1948, and Lim Tai Li who was born in Hongkong
on June 16, 1959.  It was on February 18, 1960, when Lim Lily and her mother and sister
were first admitted as temporary visitors into the Philippines.

It is clear therefore that when the petitioner filed his present
petition for naturalization,
Lim Lily was over 12 years old.

Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires the
enrollment of school-age children of applicants for naturalization in local
Filipino schools to ensure their training in the Filipino way of life, and as
an indelible mark of the applicant’s sincere desire to assume the duties and
obligations of Philippine citizenship.  By
acts of strict compliance with the legal requirement of education, among others,
can an applicant for naturalization prove that he is really imbued with love
for this country and its institutions.^[2]

The inability of Lim Chuy Tian to bring his child Lily into the Philippines
upon her attaining school age did not excuse him from complying with the
education requirement.  Thus, where four
of a petitioner’s children have always resided in China,
and, therefore, have never had any schooling in this country, this Court held
that “there is failure to comply with the (education) requirement.  That it was impossible for the applicant to
comply with this requirement due to financial difficulties or due to the
strictness of the immigration authorities is not a valid ex­cuse.  The requirement is mandatory and non-compliance
therewith is fatal to the petition for naturalization.”^[3]

In the case at bar, the situation with regard to the petitioner
is worse, because after successfully bringing in his child of school age as a temporary
visitor, he enrolled her at the St. Stephen High School, which is admittedly a
Chinese school where the majority of the students are Chinese, transferring her
to this school after first enrolling her at the Quezon
College.  This act negates the petitioner’s
pretense of sincerity in his avowed desire to embrace and imbibe the ideals,
traditions and customs of the Filipinos. 
On the contrary, it reveals an abiding intent to preserve to his
daughter a purely Chinese upbringing during her tender formative years.^[4]
The fact that the said child was later transferred to the Santa
Rosa College did
not improve the situation.^[5]

With the view that we take of this case, it serves no useful
purpose to resolve the other issues posed in this appeal.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision a quo of October 30, 1961, granting Lim Chuy Tian’s petition for
naturalization, and the order of July
1, 1966, denying the Government’s motion to cancel the certificate
of naturalization 3605 issued to him on March
31, 1964, are set aside.  The
said naturalization certificate is hereby ordered cancelled and revoked.  Costs against the petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and
Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., took no part.

^[1]
Republic vs. Reyes etc., et al., L-22550, May 16, 1966; see also Gurbuxani
vs. Government of the Philippines,
69 Phil. 280, 283-285.

^[2]
Ng Sin @ Lucio Hernandez vs. Republic, L-7590,
September 20, 1955.

^[3]
Chan Lai vs. Republic, L-11803, Sept.
23, 1959, 106 Phil. 210; accord:  Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961; Ong
So vs. Republic, L-20145, June
30, 1965.

^[4]
Lee Ng Len vs. Republic, L-20151, March 31, 1965; Sia
vs. Republic, L-20290, Aug. 31, 1965; Harry Ong
Ping Seng vs. Republic, L-19582, Feb. 26,
1965; Yap Chun vs. Republic, L-18516, Jan. 31, 1964; Lim Yuen vs.
Republic, L-21218, Dec. 24, 1965.

^[5]
Lim Yuen vs. Republic, supra, see note 4.