FRANCISCO CHAN SU HOK, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Grounds of his appeal are: (1) non-compliance with the legal
requirements relative to publication of the petition; (2) applicant did
not previously file in the office of the Solicitor-General a sworn
declaration of his intention to become a citizen; (3) applicant has not
enrolled all his children of school age in Philippine schools and (4)
applicant cannot speak and write Spanish nor English nor anyone of the
principal local dialects.

Finding the third ground to be meritorious, we deem it superfluous to discuss the others.

According to the testimony of the applicant he has five legitimate
children named Corazon, Johnson, Helen, Watson and Lilian; Corazon, 13,
is in China; Johnson, .11, is enrolled in the Anglo Chinese school in
Manila, recognized by the Government; the other three are not yet of
school age.

It does not appear that Corazon has ever been enrolled in any local
recognized school where Philippine History, Government and Civics are
taught. Wherefore this petitioner has failed to establish compliance
with all the requisites of section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law,
specially the sixth paragraph thereof. Under that provision it is the
duty of the applicant affirmatively to show that he has enrolled all his minor children of school age in one of the schools already mentioned.

On this point the appellee makes the following argument: “It is
established by the uncontradicted evidence for the petitioner that
petitioner’s eldest daughter, Corazon Chan, on April 6, 1949, date of
the petition herein, was 13 years old; that she went to China before
the war and has not come back because of the war; that before the
outbreak of the war when the petitioner had to live in Cebu, his wife
remained in Manila because their children were then studying here (pp.
25-26, 34, 45, t.s.n.) It is also established that the two children,
Johnson and Helen, of the petitioner were on the same date of the
petition for naturalization only 11 and 5 years old respectively (p.
31, t.s.n,). Consequently, when the petitioner had to live in Cebu,
leaving his wife in Manila because their children were studying here,
the children referred to were and most have been Corazon, 13 years old
and Johnson, 11 years old, because the third child, Helen, was not yet
born before the last war. Thus, contrary to the allegation of
appellant’s brief that there is no indication of record that Corazon
has ever been enrolled in any school of this country is incorrect.”

Granting that the inference as to studies is accurate, it only
demonstrates that Corazon was then studying here. No more. It does not
prove that she was then enrolled in one of the schools where Philippine History. Government and Civics are taught.
As stated in previous decisions, this Court believes such schooling to
be important, because “The legislator evidently holds that all the
minor children of an applicant for ‘citizenship oust learn Philippine
history, government and civics, inasmuch as upon naturalization of
their father they ipso facto acquire the privilege of Philippine citizenship ^[1].”

Wherefore inasmuch as the petitioner does not fulfill one of the
essential conditions for admission to Philippine citizenship, the
appealed decision will be reversed and the application for
naturalization denied. Costs against appellee. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Tan Hi vs. Rep. L-3354 Jan, 25, 1951; Hao Lian Chu vs. Rep. L-3265 Nov. 29, 1950; Lim Lian Hon vs. Rep. L-3575, Dec. 26, 1950.