IN RE: PETITION TO BE ADMITTED CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. GERVACIO CABRALES CU, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Cu versus Republic

The Case

This is Gervacio Cabrales Cu against the Republic of the Philippines, an appeal from a denial of naturalization. The petitioner, born in Ilocos Norte of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, asked the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte either to admit him to Philippine citizenship by naturalization or to declare him a Filipino citizen by reason of overt acts. The Republic opposed. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court weighs the statutory qualifications for naturalization, particularly the requirement of a lucrative lawful occupation, and how a petitioner's own disregard of Philippine law may defeat his petition.

Procedural History

The petitioner first filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, which granted it after hearing. On appeal by the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, because the petitioner failed to prove he was a citizen of Nationalist China and because he presented only one of the signers of the two affidavits of good moral character. That reversal was without prejudice to the filing of a new petition with proper evidence. The petitioner then filed a second petition with the same court, praying in the alternative that he be admitted to Philippine citizenship or declared a Filipino citizen. The trial court denied the petition in its judgment of June 1959, and denied his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court.

Facts

Gervacio Cabrales Cu is the son of Cu Tim Cu, a Chinese, and Inocencia Cabrales, a Filipina. He was born in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, on June 19, 1919, and since his birth he never left the Philippines. He finished the sixth grade, and he knows how to read and write Ilocano and English. In December 1942 he married Encarnacion Deniega in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, and seven children were born of the marriage, four of whom were already studying in the public schools. Since his marriage he had continuously resided in Bacarra, where he worked as a merchant with an annual income of 900 pesos. He had no real property.

Believing himself to be a Filipino, he ran for municipal councilor of Bacarra in 1947, but his certificate of candidacy was cancelled by the court after his citizenship was questioned, and he was found to be a Chinese citizen. He did not register himself as an alien under the Alien Registration Act of 1950, explaining that he believed himself to be a Filipino. He registered as an alien only in December 1958, long after his second petition was filed and one day before it was scheduled for hearing.

In his second petition he claimed, in the alternative, that before the passage of Commonwealth Act Number 625 on June 7, 1941, he had already performed overt acts showing he was a Filipino: he paid his residence certificate as a Filipino in 1940, he secured a professional driver's license as a Filipino in 1940 and 1941, his marriage certificate stated that he was a Filipino, and he had voted in two elections after the liberation. The trial court found that he had willfully violated the Alien Registration Act, that his witnesses had failed to show satisfactorily that he possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, and that his claim based on overt acts was without merit because the marriage and the voting took place after the passage of Commonwealth Act Number 625.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner toward the constituted government, given his intentional failure to register as an alien under the Alien Registration Act of 1950.
• Whether or not the petitioner has a lucrative lawful occupation within the meaning of the Revised Naturalization Law, given his annual income of 900 pesos with a wife and seven children to support.
• Whether or not the petitioner may be declared a Filipino citizen by reason of the overt acts he performed before the passage of Commonwealth Act Number 625.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph 4, of the Revised Naturalization Law provides:

He must have a lucrative lawful occupation.

This is the qualification the Court found the petitioner did not meet, because his income of 900 pesos a year could not support a wife and seven children.

Section 6 of the Alien Registration Act of 1950, as discussed in the trial court's judgment, provides:

He should have been prosecuted in accordance with Section 6 of the said law.

The trial court used this provision to show that the petitioner's failure to register as an alien was an intentional violation of law, which bore on whether he had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court fully agreed with and adopted the trial court's conclusion that the petitioner failed to register as an alien as required by law. The trial court had found that his failure was intentional, and that he registered only in December 1958, after his petition was filed and one day before it was set for hearing. This defeated the requirement that he conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner toward the constituted government.

On the second issue, the Court added its own ground. It found that the petitioner, with an annual income of only 900 pesos and a wife and seven children to support, four of them already schooling, clearly had no lucrative lawful occupation under Section 2, paragraph 4, of the Revised Naturalization Law. The Court recalled its ruling in Almonte Uy versus Republic that if admitted a citizen, such a petitioner may only be an addition to the many problems that now confront the nation.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the claim based on overt acts was without merit. The marriage certificate and the voting in two elections took place after the passage of Commonwealth Act Number 625 on June 7, 1941, and the petitioner did not comply with the procedure that law prescribed for electing Philippine citizenship. Having reached this conclusion, the Court found it needless to discuss the other points raised in the briefs.

Doctrine

Naturalization is a privilege, not a right, and the petitioner bears the burden of showing that he possesses every qualification and none of the disqualifications under the Revised Naturalization Law. Among these is the requirement of a lucrative lawful occupation, which means an income sufficient to support the petitioner and his dependents; a meager income that would make the applicant a burden to the nation is a ground to deny the petition. A petitioner's intentional violation of Philippine law, such as his willful failure to register as an alien, shows that he has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner toward the constituted government. Finally, a claim to Philippine citizenship by reason of overt acts must comply with the procedure prescribed by Commonwealth Act Number 625, and acts performed after its passage do not satisfy that law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a petitioner with no lucrative lawful occupation, and who willfully disobeys Philippine law, cannot be admitted to citizenship. Examiners like to use this case on the income requirement and on the effect of an applicant's violation of the Alien Registration Act on his claim of good conduct.