G.R. No. L-20604. May 29, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EDUARDO TAN (SEE LIN) TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, EDUARDO TAN (SEE LIN), PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPIN…
DIZON, J.:
On November 6, 1959 petitioner Eduardo Tan @ See Lin filed with
the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for naturalization to which
was attached the joint affidavit of his two character witnesses.
After publication of the petition in the Voz de Manila, a
newspaper of general circulation in said City, the hearing was held on
September 21, 1960, with Solicitor Pedro Ocampo appearing on behalf of the
State. On September 21, 1960 the trial
court rendered its decision granting the petition for naturalization. On September 8, 1962
petitioner filed with the trial court a
petition that he be allowed to take his
oath of allegiance as a Filipino
citizen on the 28th of the same
month. At the hearing thereof held on that date, at which, according to the appealed order, “the office of
the Solicitor General was duly notified of this petition and has signified its
conformity”, the trial court found that petitioner had complied with the
provisions of Republic Act No. 530, and was allowed to take his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen. On the
same date, however, upon motion of Solicitor Ylagan, who had appeared for the
State at the hearing of the motion for authority to take the oath of
allegiance, the court deferred the oath taking of petitioner for thirty days,
and on October 17 of the same year the office of the Solicitor General filed
with the court the following manifestation:
“COMES NOW the Republic of the Philippines, by undersigned
counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully makes the following manifestation:
1.
That this proceedings preparatory to oath taking
was finished last September 28, 1962;
2.
That, during the hearing, the undersigned,
Solicitor in charge, in his cross-examination, raised the question that petitioner
failed to enroll his minor child of school age in any of the public or private
schools recognized by the Office of Private Education (Sec. 2, par. 6, Revised
Naturalization Law), to which counsel for petitioner objected; and this
Honorable Court, in ruling on the matter, sustained the objection;
3.
That, in
its order dated September 28, 1962, the Court has stated in the dispositive
portion thereof: ‘x x x it appearing that the Solicitor
General has no objection to the same (petition to take oath), the Court finds
that the petitioner has complied
with the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, and he is hereby allowed to take
his oath of allegiance as a Filipino
citizen x x x’;
4.
That, in deference to this Court, it must be
stated that such statement is inaccurate, the fact being that in his
cross-examination the Solicitor in charge raised the issue of petitioner’s failure to
comply with Sec. 2, paragraph 6 of the
Revised Naturalization Law, with the view to invoking such non-compliance by
petitioner as ground, among others, for appeal;
5.
That, in another order dated September 28, 1962,
the Court said:
‘ORDER
Upon Motion of Solicitor Celso Ylagan, let the oathtaking of the
herein petitioner be deferred thirty (30) days from today.’
6. That, again,
there is some inaccuracy in the above-quoted order of the Court, the
fact being that it was the Court itself that, motu propio, suggested that the
oathtaking be deferred 30 days, upon hearing undersigned Solicitor in charge
manifest that he would study the case
and the evidence for the purpose of filing the Government’s opposition.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this manifestation be
incorporated in, and made part of, the records of this case.”
After the filing of the manifestation quoted above, the
Government perfected its appeal from the trial court’s order of September 28,
1962 allowing petitioner to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen. In
the brief submitted on its behalf, the following questions are raised:
“I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GRANTING PETITIONER OATHTAKING, AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE REGLEMENTARY 2-YEAR PROBATION PERIOD, PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC
ACT 530, SAID PETITIONER HAVING FAILED TO SEND HIS ONLY CHILD TO A PHILIPPINE
SCHOOL.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED, LIKEWISE, IN ALLOWING OATHTAKING
TO PETITIONER, CONSIDERING HIS UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ALIASES.”
According to the record, petitioner had an only child named See
Ko Piao born in Amoy, China in May 1942.
This son lived in Hongkong with his mother, petitioner’s wife, named Ng
Hui Chu, and had never been brought to the Philippines. Thus, it is beyond question that petitioner
had failed to send his only son to a Philippine school, in violation of our
laws requiring him to enroll his children of school age in schools recognized
by the Government of the Philippines and open to all races or nationalities and
where Philippine History, Government and Civics are taught and form part of the
school curriculum. The fact that Ko
Piao had been living in Hongkong did not excuse his father from complying with
our law, for it was his duty to make
every effort possible to bring him to the Philippines so that he could be given
the required education (Dy Chuan
Tiao vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-6430, August 31, 1954; Tan Hoi vs. Republic, G.
R. No. L-15266, September 30, 1960; Ko Sengkee vs.
Republic etc., G. R. L-3863, December 27, 1951; Tan Hi vs. Republic etc., G. R.
L-3354, January 25, 1951).
In connection with the second assignment of error, the record
likewise shows that petitioner’s name given in his petition for naturalization
is EDUARDO TAN (See Lin). This
notwithstanding, he admitted during the hearing that he has an alias, namely,
TAN BON HUA. In the notice published in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper
of general circulation in connection with his petition for naturalization, his
name was stated as SEE LIN @ EDUARDO TAN BON HUA and EDUARDO SEE TAN. In Exhibits
AA, BB, CC, DD, EE and others, his only name appears as See Lin, while in his
residence certificate, Exhibit FF, and Land Registration Commission clearance
Exhibit FF, his name appears as SEE LIN @ TAN BON HUA.
No argument need be adduced to show that the unauthorized use of
the foregoing names by petitioner was, to say the least, confusing and might
have caused substantial prejudice to the
right of the Government to
investigate his background.
Petitioner claims that the issues raised by the Government in this appeal are barred, the
decision of the trial court granting petitioner’s petition for naturalization
having become executory. This is untenable. We have
repeatedly held that at the hearing of a petition for authority to take the oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen, the State is not
precluded from objecting thereto upon any legal ground that would show fraud,
or error committed in the previous decision granting the petition for
naturalization.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is reversed and set
aside, with costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Fernando, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., in the result.
Castro, J., on official leave.