IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG CHUN TO BE ADMITTED TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, ANG CHUN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Manila denying the petitioner-appellant Ang Chun’s
motion that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines.

Ang Chun filed on March 21, 1960 a petition for natu­ralization
with the CFI of Manila (CC 42802).  After
due trial, the court rendered judgment granting his petition.  On January
7, 1963 he filed a motion that he be permitted to take his oath of
allegiance.  After due hearing, the same
court denied the motion on the ground that he “does not have an adequate
knowledge of English.”  His subsequent
motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Two basic questions are posed by this appeal, namely, (1) at the
hearing of the motion to take oath, could the lower court still inquire into
any matter affecting the qualifications of the petitioner to become a citizen
of the Philippines?  and (2) is he
possessed of the requisite language qualification?

The first question is answered in the affirmative.  A
court which initially granted the petition for naturalization, at the
hearing of the motion to take oath, is not
limited to inquiring into whether the petitioner (1) has not left the
Philippines, (2) has dedicated himself continuously
to a lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated
rules; and (4) has not committed any act prejudicial to the interests of the
nation or contrary to any Government announced policies (sec. 1, R.A.
530).  The court may inquire into “any
question affecting the qualification of the applicant” (Lim Hok Albano, etc. vs. Republic,
L-10912, Oct. 31, 1958, and the cases therein cited; Ong
Ching Guan vs. Republic, L-15691, March 27,
1961).  Indeed, the Government is not estopped
to question the petitioner’s
status as a citizen, even after hearing
on his petition for naturalization has been had, for unlike final decisions in
actions and other court proceedings, a decision or order granting
citizenship does not immediately become executory,
and, a naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the
decision therein is not res judicata as
to any matter which would support a judgment
cancelling the certificate of naturalization
(Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961).

Upon the second question, we agree that the petitioner is not
possessed of the requisite language qualification.  When asked to translate into Tagalog the sentence, “I intend to spend the rest of my life in this country”, he wrote “Ang Filipinas ay parang bayan ko na.”
The lower court further found that the petitioner committed many errors
and wrote illegible words when asked to write the sentence above-quoted, and
the sentence “My children are studying in schools in Manila.”
Deficiency in “working knowledge” of the English language warrants
denial of his motion to take the oath as well as his petition for naturalization
itself (Lim Bun vs. Republic, L-12822,
April 26, 1961).

ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from is affirmed, and the
petition for naturalization is denied, at petitioner-appellant’s cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and
Sanchez, JJ., concur.