IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG PUE (ALIAS VICENTE TAN) TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANG PUE (ALIAS VICENTE TAN), PETITIONER AND APPELLEE.

Appeal taken by the Republic of
the Philippines from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo in Civil Case Ho. 77 admitting Ang Pue, alias Vicente Tan, to
Philippine citizenship, contending that the latter had not complied
with the mandatory provisions of Section 2, paragraph 6, of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.

On September 24, 1958, appellee filed his petition for
naturalization alleging, among other things, that he was born on
September 21, 1920 in Chingkang, China, a citizen of Nationalist China,
and arrived in the Philippines on December 1933 on board the vessel “An
King”; that he had lived here ever since, and particularly In the City
of Iloilo for at least one year immediately preceding the date of the
petition; that he was married to “Koo” Siok Tuan, Who wi a resident of
344 Lockhart Road, Hongkong, together with their children, Pedro Ang
Ian (alias-Tan Teik Chay), age 17, and Eduardo Ang Tan (alias-Tan Teik
Kong), age 13, all born In Chingkang, China; that his two sons never
had an opportunity to stay in the Philippines as he came to this
country alone.

After due publication of the petition and
proper hearing where the City Fiscal of Iloilo, in representation of
the Solicitor General, filed an opposition thereto, the court rendered
the appealed judgment.

Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth
Act No. 473 provides that an applicant for naturalization must have
enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools,
or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the
Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught
or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire
period of his residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the
hearing of his petition. We have construed this provision to be
mandatory so that failure to comply with it constitutes a valid ground
for denying the petition (Chan vs. Republic, 90 Phil., 415; Tan vs.
Republic, 92 Phil., 915; 49 Off. Gaz. p. 1409). We have further held
that the fact that the children of the applicant could not be brought
to the Philippines due to the civil war In China or to the strictness
of Philippine Immigration Laws do not constitute valid excuses for
non-compliance with this requirement (Lian Chua vs. Republic, 48 Off.
Gaz. p. 1780; Ng Sin vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-7590, September 29,
19S5; Sy Kiap vs. Republic 48 0. G. p. 3362). Moreover, the petition
for naturalization itself shows that applicant’s son named Pedro Ang
Tan was born on October 2, 1941 at Chingkang, China, and that his other
son Eduardo was born on September 15, 1945 at the same place. If this
is true, it is very doubtful, to say the least, that appellee had truly
resided in the Philippines continuously since his arrival In the month
of December 1933.

WHEREFORE,
the decision appealed from is reversed, with the result that appellee’s
application for naturalization is dismissed, with costs.

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