IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EUSEBIO MANZANO DY CHAN TIAO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. EUSEBIO MANZANO DY CHAN TIAO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF…

Dy Chan Tiao versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is the petition of Eusebio Manzano Dy Chan Tiao to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines, opposed by the Republic of the Philippines through the Solicitor General. It is a naturalization case: a foreigner asks the courts to confer Philippine citizenship upon him, and the State resists. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules for the bar: first, that an applicant who claims exemption from the declaration of intention must still show that all his children, including those abroad and those already of age, were enrolled in schools recognized by the Philippine Government; and second, that the deliberate omission of a material fact from the application, such as the existence of a child, destroys the presumption of good faith and negates the requirement of good moral character.

Procedural History

The petition for naturalization was filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Solicitor General originally opposed it on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a declaration of intention as required by section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, and had not complied with the requirement of section 6 as to the education of his children. After trial, the Solicitor General filed a supplementary opposition, adding that the petitioner is not of good moral character because he deliberately omitted the name of one of his children, Fanny Dy, from his application. The Court of First Instance approved the petition over the opposition. The Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision below and denied the petition.

Facts

Eusebio Manzano Dy Chan Tiao came to the Philippines on June 10, 1909, and since then has continuously resided in the country. He is married to Irene Gonzales, with whom he has nine children, all born in the Philippines between 1927 and 1946. He enrolled these children in schools recognized by the Government, where Philippine Government is taught. He speaks and writes English and Ilongo, has lived and mingled with Filipinos, earns an annual income of more than 3,000 pesos through business, believes in organized government, is opposed to the use of force or violence in asserting political ideas, is a Catholic, and does not believe in polygamy.

On cross-examination, however, he admitted having another daughter, Fanny Dy, whom he and his wife had brought to China when she was only two years old. Fanny has not come to the Philippines; she studied in Fusan, Amoy, China, where she has lived since, and is now married there. She was therefore never educated in a school approved or recognized by the Government of the Philippines.

The application was filed on June 30, 1948. The petitioner admitted the existence of this tenth child in an affidavit made on September 12, 1948, yet he did not amend his application to insert her name, and made no mention of her until he was forced to admit it on cross-examination. No explanation was offered for the omission.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner complied with the requirement of educating all his children in public or private schools recognized by the Government, despite the fact that his daughter Fanny Dy was educated in China and had already reached the age of majority at the time of the filing of the application.
• Whether or not the petitioner possesses the requirement of good moral character, in view of his deliberate omission of a material fact, namely the existence of his daughter Fanny Dy, from his application.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which requires the applicant to have given education to his minor children of school age in public or private schools recognized by the Government, provides:

Section 5. The petitioner shall file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines one year prior to the filing of his petition, and shall state in such declaration his name, age, occupation, place of birth, place of residence, and the country of which he is a citizen, and shall declare that he renounces forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the country of which he is a citizen, and that he will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the Philippines and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

This is the general rule from which the petitioner claims exemption, and the Court holds that the exemption must be interpreted strictly against him.

Section 6 of the same law, which the petitioner invokes for exemption from the declaration of intention, provides:

Section 6. The following persons are exempt from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention: (1) Those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more; (2) Those who have been born in the Philippines and have resided therein continuously for a period of thirty years or more; and (3) Those who have served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or in any of the recognized military or naval establishments of the Philippines.

This is the provision under which the petitioner claims exemption, and the Court holds that an applicant claiming under it must still have enrolled all his children in schools recognized by the Government.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the contention is well founded. The petitioner himself admitted that his daughter Fanny Dy studied in Fusan, Amoy, China, where she has always lived since she was brought there at the age of two. She was not educated in schools approved or recognized by the Government of the Philippines. The fact that she was outside the Philippines while a minor does not excuse her father from complying with the law as to her education when she was of school age. Neither does the fact that she had already reached the age of majority at the time of the filing of the application release him from that obligation. The Court explained that while section 5 requires the applicant to have given education to his minor children of school age, such is not the case with an applicant claiming exemption under section 6. Since the petitioner claims an exemption from the general rule, the provision should be interpreted strictly against him.

On the second issue, the Court likewise held that the opposition is well founded. The existence of the tenth child is a material matter, because the applicant would have succeeded in proving that he possesses all the requirements of the law had this matter not been elicited at the time of the trial. No explanation was made for the omission, and the fact that it would disqualify him were it known is sufficient to destroy the presumption of good faith that would ordinarily be indulged in his favor. The Court was not prepared to find the petitioner a man of good moral character in view of this suppression of a material fact, and held that he has not proved that he possesses this moral qualification.

Doctrine

First, an applicant for naturalization who claims exemption from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention under section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law must still show that all his children were enrolled in public or private schools recognized by the Government. The obligation is not excused by the child's absence abroad during minority, nor by the child's having reached the age of majority at the time of the filing of the application. Because the applicant claims an exemption from the general rule, the provision is interpreted strictly against him.

Second, the deliberate omission of a material fact from the application, such as the existence of a child, destroys the presumption of good faith and negates the requirement of good moral character. An applicant who suppresses a fact that would disqualify him cannot be said to possess good moral character.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and denied the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an applicant claiming exemption from the declaration of intention must still educate all his children in schools recognized by the Government, and the suppression of a material fact destroys good moral character. Examiners use this case to test the strict interpretation of naturalization exemptions and the moral character requirement in citizenship cases.