ROQUE PARADO ALIAS ROQUE V. SOINGCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is a petition for naturalization.

It is alleged and proved that the petitioner, whose name is Roque Parado alias
Roque V. Soingco, was born on 11 September 1912 in the municipality of
Asingan, province of Pangasinan, of Chinese father and Filipino mother.
From the time he was born to the date of the filing of the application,
he lived in the town of his birth. He enrolled and completed the
elementary education in the public school of his town; enrolled and
finished his high school at the Jose Rizal College, and his college
education at the University of Manila, and is now enrolled in the
Philippine Law School where he is a junior. He speaks and writes
English, Pangasinan, Ilocano and Tagalog. He owns real estate in
Solano, province of Nueva Vizcaya, and in Asingan, province of
Pangasinan, valued at not less than P5,000. He is married to Ruth
Virginia M. Vibat, a native, who bore him four (4) children, namely,
Rebecca, seven (7) years of age; Rolando, five (5); Virgilio, three
(3); and Arturo, one (1). Rebecca is enrolled in the public school of
the town of Asingan. He is of good moral character and believes in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and has conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period
of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he lives.
He has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere
desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the
Filipinos. He possesses all the qualifications required by section 2,
and none of the disqualifications provided for in section 4, of
Commonwealth Act 473. It is his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and
particularly to the Chinese Republic, of which he is a citizen at the
time of the filing of the application.

The petitioner claims that he is exempt from filing a declaration
of intention, as required by section 5 of Commonwealth Act 473, because
he was born in the Philippines and received the primary and secondary
education in public schools and those recognized by the government and
not limited to any race or nationality; because he has resided
continuously in the Philippines for a period of more than thirty (30)
years before the filing of his application; and because he has given
his eldest daughter of school age elementary education in the public
school of the town of Asingan, pursuant to section 1 of Common- wealth
Act 535, amending section 6 of Commonwealth Act 473.

The opposition of the Government rests on the failure of the
applicant to file a declaration of intention, as provided for in
section 5 of. Commonwealth Act 473.

After the applicant had presented his evidence and rested his case,
the Government did not introduce any evidence. Upon the facts alleged
and established, the court granted the petition for naturalization
filed by the applicant. The Government has appealed.

It is contended that the applicant failed to show that the
naturalization laws of the Republic of China, of which country the
applicant is a citizen, likewise grant to citizens of the Republic of
the Philippines the same privilege of becoming naturalized citizens
thereof. This point has already been passed upon and decided against
the contention of the Government.^[1]

It is also contended that, even if the applicant possesses all the
qualifications, and none of the disqualifications, provided for in
Commonwealth Act 473, as amended by Commonwealth Act 535, and even if
he is not required to file a declaration of intention, as provided for
in section 5 of Commonwealth Act 473, because he was born in the
Philippines and has received his primary and secondary education in
public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to
any race or nationality, or because he has resided therein for more
than thirty (30) years, the petition cannot be granted, because he has
not shown that the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of China
has permitted him to renounce his nationality, under and pursuant to
article 11, chapter III of the Chinese Law of Nationality, promulgated
by the National Government on 5 February 1929. It is argued that, if
the applicant has to renounce, in open court, his allegiance to the
Republic of China, he could not make such renunciation, as required by
section 12 of Commonwealth Act 473, unless he had been granted the
permission to make it by the Minister of the Interior of the Republic
of China.

We are not dealing with the case of a citizen of the Republic of
China who was born there and immigrated to this country. The applicant
was born here and ever since his birth he has lived and resided in this
country. Technically, he is a Chinese citizen because of the
citizenship or nationality of his father. To settle once and for all
his status he applied for naturalization. Doubt may be entertained as
to the right of the Republic of China to claim him as its citizen owing
allegiance to it. Loyalty, fealty, or allegiance of an individual is
revealed by deeds performed and words uttered in the community where he
lives and moves around. That feeling is hard to conceal. It cannot be
controlled by laws, nay, even by force. So that when a person applying
for citizenship by naturalization takes an oath that he renounces his
loyalty to any other country or government and solemnly declares that
he owes his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the
condition imposed by law is satisfied and complied with. The
determination whether such renunciation is valid or fully complies with
the provisions of our Naturalization Law lies within the province and
is an exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply the
law duly enacted by the legislative department of the Republic. No
foreign law may or should interfere with its operation and application.
If the requirement of the Chinese Law of Nationality were to be read
into our Naturalization Law, we would be applying not what our
legislative department has deemed it wise to require, but what a
foreign government has thought or intended to exact. That, of course,
is absurd. It must be resisted by all means and at all cost. It would
be a brazen encroachment upon the sovereign will and power of the
people of this Republic.

Decree affirmed, without costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Pablo, J., no part.

---

^[1] Yap vs. The Solicitor General, 81 Phil., 468; supplement No. 1 to 46 O. G., 250; Yee Bo Mann vs. Republic of the Philippines, 46 O. G. 201; 83 Phil., p. 749; Lock Ben Ping vs. Republic of the.Philippines, 47 O. G., 176; 84 Phil., p. 217; Leelin vs. Republic of the Philippines, 47 O. G., 694; 84 Phil., p. 352;; and Go vs. Anti-Chinese-league of the Philippines and Felipe Fernandez, 47 O. G., 716; 84 Phil., p. 468.