IN RE-PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, KAW SENG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

The Solicitor General seeks the reversal of a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Iloilo granting the petition for naturaliza­tion of appellee Kaw Seng.  Several grounds have been invoked in support
of the stand taken by the government. 
Insofar as this appeal is concerned, it will suffice to consider one
only.

It is not disputed that the appellee
has not filed the declara­tion of intention required in section 5 of Com. Act
No. 473, upon the ground that he had continuously resided in the Philippines
for over thirty years, or since 1916, and that he is, accordingly, exempt from
such requirement under section 6 of said Act, as amended by Com. Act No. 535,
the pertinent part of which provides that:

“Persons born in the Philippines and have received their
primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the
Gov­ernment and not limited to any race or nationality, and those who have
resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more
before filing their application, may be naturalized without having to make a
declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this
Act.  To such requirements shall be added
that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary
education to all his children in the public schools or in
private schools recog­nized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality.  x x x.”^[1]

It is admitted, however, that appellee
had gone to China
and stayed there from eight (8) to nine (9) months, in 1921; ten (10)months in 1927; eight (8) months in 1932; and four (4)
months in 1946.  More­over, his children
were enrolled in the Iloilo Chinese
Commercial High School,
thus failing to evince a sincere desire to identify him­self and his family
with the local community and to embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of
the Filipino people.^[2]
Accordingly, the present case falls squarely within the purview of Sy See v. Republic,^[3]
in which it was held:

“Another requirement to exempt an appli­cant for
naturalization from filing the notice of intention to apply for Philippine citizenship, is that the residence of the applicant in the Philip­pines
must be continuous.  The petitioner at
bar was absent having gone to China
on the following years and for so many months: 
1941, five months; 1946, three months; 1956, two months; 1958, two
months; and 1959, two months.  The
apparent purpose of the petitioner in going to Hong Kong
was to visit his family and children who were living in China
or in Hong Kong. 
An applicant who has left the Philippines so many times and stayed
outside for so long periods of time to visit his family outside the
Philippines, cannot be considered as having resided in the Philip­pines
continuously as required by Section 5 of the Naturalization Act.  x x
x.”

Owing to appellee’s absence from the Philippines
for longer periods of time than those of Sy See, and
to the enrolment of his children in Chinese schools, it is clear that appellee cannot avail of the benefits of section 6 of our
amended Naturalization Act.  This
explains why he did not even file a brief in the present appeal.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, reversed, and another one entered dismissing the petition for naturalization
of appellee Kaw Seng, with costs against him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., did not take part.

^[1] Underscoring ours.

^[2] Ong Ching Guan v.
Republic, L-15691, March 27, 1961; Garchitorena v.
Republic, L-15102, April 20, 1961; Hao Su Siong v. Republic, L-13045, July 30, 1962; Wang I Fu
v. Republic, L-15819, September 29, 1962; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; Pek v. Republic, L-20913, November 29, 1965;
Lim Yuen v. Republic, L-21218, December 24, 1965; Ching
Kiat Huat v.
Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966; Ang Pua v. Rep­ublic, L-16459, July 26, 1966; Tan Tian v. Republic, L-19899, March 18, 1967; Chua Tek v. Republic, L-22372, March 31, 1967; Yap Puey Eng v. Republic, L-24805, May 23, 1968; Chan De
v. Republic, L-25551, May 29, 1968.

^[3]
L-17025, May 30, 1962.