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.

Ang Pue versus Republic

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines against Ang Pue, also known as Vicente Tan, a citizen of Nationalist China who asked the courts to admit him as a citizen of the Philippines. The Republic appealed the grant of his petition, and the case matters because it fixes the character of one of the mandatory requirements of the Naturalization Law: the enrollment of the applicant's minor children of school age in schools recognized by the government where Philippine history, government and civics are taught. It is a short decision, but it is a favorite of examiners because it states the rule of strict compliance plainly and refuses to soften it with sympathy for the applicant's circumstances.

Procedural History

Ang Pue filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where it was docketed as Civil Case Number 77. After due publication of the petition and a hearing, in which the City Fiscal of Iloilo, representing the Solicitor General, filed an opposition, the trial court rendered judgment admitting him to Philippine citizenship. The Republic appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court, contending that Ang Pue had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 2, paragraph 6, of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court.

Facts

Ang Pue alleged in his petition that he was born on September 21, 1920, in Chingkang, China, that he was a citizen of Nationalist China, and that he arrived in the Philippines in December 1933 on board the vessel An King. He claimed that he had lived in the country ever since, and particularly in the City of Iloilo for at least one year immediately preceding the date of his petition.

He further alleged that he was married to Koo Siok Tuan, who resided at 344 Lockhart Road, Hongkong, together with their children, Pedro Ang Tan, also known as Tan Teik Chay, aged seventeen, and Eduardo Ang Tan, also known as Tan Teik Kong, aged thirteen, both born in Chingkang, China. His explanation for the children's absence was that his two sons never had an opportunity to stay in the Philippines because he came to this country alone.

The petition itself showed that Pedro was born on October 2, 1941, and Eduardo on September 15, 1945, both at Chingkang, China. The Court noted that if this were true, it was very doubtful, to say the least, that Ang Pue had truly resided in the Philippines continuously since his arrival in December 1933.

Issues

• Whether or not the requirement in Section 2, paragraph 6, of Commonwealth Act Number 473, that the applicant enroll his minor children of school age in public schools or in private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government and civics are taught, is mandatory.
• Whether or not the failure of the applicant's children to come to the Philippines, because of the civil war in China or the strictness of the Philippine immigration laws, is a valid excuse for non-compliance with that requirement.
• Whether or not the applicant may be admitted to Philippine citizenship despite non-compliance with that requirement.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph 6, of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, provides:

The petitioner 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 the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.

This is the provision the Court construed as mandatory, and its non-compliance is the ground on which the petition was dismissed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement is mandatory, so that failure to comply with it constitutes a valid ground for denying the petition. It relied on its earlier rulings in Chan versus Republic, Tan versus Republic, and other cases, and treated the question as already settled.

On the second issue, the Court 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 the Philippine immigration laws, does not constitute a valid excuse for non-compliance with the requirement. It cited Lian Chua versus Republic, Ng Sin versus Republic, and Sy Kiap versus Republic for this point.

On the third issue, the Court refused to affirm the admission. It added a further observation drawn from the petition itself: since the applicant's sons were born in Chingkang, China, in October 1941 and September 1945, it was very doubtful that the applicant had truly resided in the Philippines continuously since his arrival in December 1933. The claim of continuous residence and the fact of the children's births in China did not sit well together.

Doctrine

Naturalization is a privilege granted by the State, and the requirements of the Naturalization Law are to be complied with strictly. The enrollment of the applicant's minor children of school age in public schools, or in private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government and civics are taught, during the entire period of residence required prior to the hearing, is mandatory. Failure to comply with it is a valid ground for denying the petition.

Equally important for the Bar candidate: the inability to bring the children to the Philippines, whether because of civil war in the country of origin or because of the strictness of Philippine immigration laws, is not a valid excuse. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying every requirement, and hardship to him does not excuse non-compliance. The case also reminds us that the allegations of the petition must be internally consistent, because the Court will test the claim of continuous residence against the facts the applicant himself pleads.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court, dismissed Ang Pue's application for naturalization, and imposed costs against him.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that the enrollment of minor children of school age in recognized schools is mandatory, and neither civil war in China nor the strictness of our immigration laws excuses non-compliance. Examiners use this case in citizenship and naturalization questions, and as an illustration of strict compliance with statutory requirements in proceedings where the State is the opposing party.