IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ACQUISITION OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE AND CANCELLATION OF ALIEN CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.  LO BENG HA ONG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS…

Appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Norte, in its Special Proceeding No. 282, the dispositive
portion of which decrees as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment declaring the
petitioner Lo Beng Ha a Filipino citizen by reason of
her marriage to her Filipino husband, Nelson Ong and
ordering the cancellation of the Petitioner’s alien certificate of
registration.”

Petitioner-appellee Lo Beng Ha Ong is the daughter of
Chinese parents who are permanent residents of the Philippines.  Since her birth, on 1 September 1942, in Daet,
Camarines Norte, she has never left the Philippines.  She received her elementary and secondary
education at Chung Hua High School
in Daet and at Chiang
Kai Shek High School
in Manila, respectively.  She had finished two years of study leading
to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education at the University of the East
when she stopped on account of her marriage, on 27 June 1964, to a resident of Daet,
one Nelson Ong, said to be a natural-born Filipino.^[1]
She has never been charged for violation of any municipal ordinance or for any
criminal offense, is not suffering from any incurable disease, had paid her residence
taxes and alien registration fees, speaks English, Tagalog
and Bicol, and had mingled with Filipinos (t.s.n., pages 6, 9-10)

Admittedly, she did not file any declaration of intention to
become a Filipino citizen; she does not own any real property and has no
lucrative calling being a mere housewife, but her husband, Nelson Ong, earns P400 a month (t.s.n.,
pages 12, 16-17; Appellee’s brief, pages 13-15).

On 19 November 1964, Lo Beng Ha Ong filed a petition with the court a quo
entitled “In the Matter of the Petition for Acquisition of Filipino Citizenship by Marriage and Cancellation of Alien Certificate
of Registration, Lo Beng Ha Ong
Petitioner”, which was docketed
as Special Proceeding No. 282.  Upon the filing of the petition, the Court
required the local civil registrar and the Commissioner of Immigration to file
their opposition, if any they have; set the case for hearing on 7 December
1964; and ordered the publication of the order (Record on Appeal, pages1-7),

The said order, which also cited all persons opposing the
petition to appear and show cause
why the petition should not be granted, was published in the Manila Daily
Bulletin on 23 and 30 November and 7
December 1964 (Exhibit ”A”).

On 7 December 1964,
the Republic filed its opposition and motion to dismiss Trial was held,
with the petitioner offering oral and documentary evidence.  Oppositor Republic
did not submit any evidence, but cross-examined the witnesses for the
petitioner.

On 9 December 1964, the trial
court rendered the judgment which is the
subject of the present appeal by the Republic.

The main issue involves the interpretation and application of the
first paragraph of Section 15 of
the Revised Naturalization Law, which provides:

“Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen
of the Philippines,
and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citi­zen of the
Philippines.”

This Court has hitherto ruled that, under the foregoing
provision, the marriage of the
petitioner-appellee to a Filipino citizen did not
automatically confer like
citizenship upon her, for to be “deemed a citizen of the Philippines”
she must first prove that she is
one “who might herself be lawfully naturalized”^[2]
by showing that she possesses not only the qualifications required by law to become a Filipino citizen by
naturalization^[3]
but also none of the disqualifications^[4], even if her husband is a native-born
Filipino.^[5]

The foregoing rules apply with the same vigor to alien women who
were born in the Philippines,
such as the appellee, since Section 15 does not
distinguish whether the woman referred to therein is native-born or
foreign-born, nor whether she is a transient or temporary sojourner or is a
permanent resident in this country.

Disregarding procedural questions, we also find that the evidence
submitted by petitioner in support of her petition is deficient.  She testified that since her birth she has
not left the Philippines,
which shows a continuous residence of not less than ten years; but her good
moral character was not supported by competent and impartial witnesses.  Neither did she prove that she is not
suffering from the disqualifications
under Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Act, for opposing organized
government, defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, etc.,
for being a polygamist, or for not mingling socially with Filipinos.

Appellee invokes the very fact of her
marriage to a Filipino to show the sincerity
of her desire to learn and embrace local customs, traditions and ideals but
such sincerity is negated by her attendance in the Chiang
Kai Shek
High School where the enrolment is predominantly Chinese.^[6]

Petitioner pleads for a relaxation of the opposite rules and
doctrines in her case, arguing
that while she is obliged to live with her husband, who resides in the Philippines, she, as an alien,
remains subject to deportation, and thus subject to separation from, and denial
of the love of her consort.  That the
naturalization law requires as a
qualification ownership of real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos but
the Constitution forbids her from acquiring real estate; or that she has to
have a lucrative calling but her husband can stop her from the pursuit of her
calling.  That she is required to prove
that she is not disqualified for
opposing organized government or for advocating violence for the success and predominance of her
ideas when she is but a woman; and that
she has to show that she is not a polygamist or a believer in polygamy,
yet as a woman polygamy is to
her disadvantage.

Appellee’s arguments miss the nature of
citizenship and the power of the state
over it.  The provisions of the civil
code that she relies upon govern the relations between husband and wife inter
se; but the law on citizenship is political
in character (Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil.
315), and the national policy is one for selective admission to Philippine
citizenship.^[7]
Citizenship is not a right similar to those that exist between husband and wife
or between private persons, but

“x x x is a
privilege which a sovereign government may confer on, or withhold from, an
alien or grant to him on such conditions as it sees fit, without the support of
any reason whatsoever.” (3 C. J. S. 834)

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the
judgment under appeal is reversed, and the “petition for acquisition of
Filipino citizenship” in the court below is ordered dismissed.  No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Sanchez, Angeles,
Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Dizon, Zaldivar,
Makalintal, and
Castro, JJ., did not take part.

^[1]
Nelson’s father, Primo Cabanela, claims to be the
illegitimate son of a Chinese father, Ong Chua, and a
Filipina mother, Hilaria
Cabanela.  (Exh.”F“, t.s.n., 7
December 1964, pages 19 and 21)

^[2] Cua v. Board, etc., 101 Phil. 521.

^[3]
Lee Suan Ay, et al. vs. Galang,
et al., 106 Phil. 706.

^[4]
Ly Giok Ha, et al. vs. Galang,
et al., L-21332, 13 March 1966.    

^[5]
Austria, et al. vs. Conchu, L-20716, 22 June
1965.

^[6]
Li Tong Pek vs. Republic, L-20912, 29 November
1965; Tan Tian vs. Republic, L-19899, 18 March
1967; Chan De vs. Republic, L-25551, 29 May 1968.

^[7] Brito, et al. vs. Commissioner, L-16829, 30 June
1965; Co Im Ty vs.
Republic, L-17919, 30 July 1966.