IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HENRY SY CHUANG, TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, HENRY SY CHUANG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITO…

The objection by the Republic of the Philippines, oppositor, now appellant, to the grant of citizenship to
petitioner, now appellee, Henry Sy
Chuang, was premised primarily on his failure to file
a declaration of intention, which in his opinion was unnecessary because of his
birth in this country, ignoring the fact that his primary and secondary
education, as it turned out, was obtained in Chinese schools, the recognition
of which was testified to solely by himself and not by official certification
to such effect.  Such deficiencies
notwithstanding, the lower court, satisfied that his petition should prosper,
rendered a decision in his favor.  The
matter is now before us.  Respect for the
control­ling principles of law leaves us no alternative but to reverse.

The petition for naturalization was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Negros Oriental on November 2, 1963. 
There was no declaration of intention, petitioner relying on his being
born in the Philippines
and his completion of primary and secondary education in government-recognized
schools, namely, the Dumaguete
Chinese School
and Iloilo Sun
Yat Sen High School.  There was a hearing after which such petition
was granted in a decision of September
30, 1964.  Then came the order
of April 29, 1967 allowing
petitioner to take his oath of allegiance as Filipino citizen.  Such an order was received on May 15, 1967 by
the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, who immediately filed by registered mail a motion
for reconsider­ation on the ground that the lower court never validly acquired
jurisdiction in view of the failure of the petition to file a declaration of
intention, his alleged right to be exempt therefrom
being unwarranted.  The motion for
reconsideration was denied.  Hence this
appeal.

In the brief for the Republic of the Philippines
filed by the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice, Felix V. Makasiar, there was a reiteration of the above contention
of lack of juris­diction as the principal error assigned.  As set forth in such brief:  “On the witness stand petitioner claimed
he finished his elementary education at the Dumaguete
Chinese School in the year 1952, and his secondary education at the Sun Yat Sen High School in Iloilo
City in the year 1956 * * *, but the only evidence offered to prove that these
schools were recognized by the government was petitioner’s own self-serving
declaration to that effect * * *. 
Clearly petitioner is not competent to testify on the matter.  The best evidence of government recognition
would have been the certificates of recognition issued to the schools by the
Bureau of Private Schools, or certified true copies thereof.”^[1]

Why petitioner was not entitled to be exempt in filing a
declaration of intention was next taken up therein.  Thus: 
“Undersigned counsel however consulted the ‘List of Authorized
Private Schools and Courses’ issued by the Bureau of Private Schools, which shows
that the certificate of government recognition issued to the Dumaguete Chinese School authorized it in 1959 to offer the
complete elementary course for Chinese schools, while the Sun Yat Sen High School was in 1957
authorized to offer the complete secondary course for Chinese schools
(Bureau of Printing, Manila 1963, pp. 230 & 116).  That these schools offer curricula for
Chinese schools and that the very names of the schools are Chinese clearly
indicate they are Chinese schools. 
Moreover, these schools had not yet been recognized by the government
when the petitioner studied there.  He
completed his elementary in 1952 at the Dumaguete Chinese
School * * *, whereas the school
was recognized by the government only in 1959. 
He completed his secondary in 1956 at the Sun
Yat Sen High School
* * *, whereas it was recognized only in 1956. 
He therefore cannot be said to have taken his primary and secondary
education in government recognized schools and hence cannot be exempted from
filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act
473.”^[2]

The legal proposition in support of the above assignment of error
was furnished by Ng v. Republic,^[3]
where this Court, through the Chief Justice, declared:  “Petitioner has not filed a declaration
of intention.  Although born in the
Philippines, he is not exempted from the obligation to submit said declaration
having failed to prove that he had received his ‘primary and secondary
education in public schools or those recognized by the government and not
limited to any race or nationality.'”^[4]

Counsel for petitioner failed to submit appellee’s
brief.  In a resolution of July 23, 1969, the case was deemed
submitted.

This Court, to repeat, finds for appellant Republic of the Philippines.  The petition is vitiated by a jurisdictional
defect.  Petitioner, considering the
incontrovertible facts of record, could not validly lay claim to an exemption
from the filing of a declaration of intention. 
The law as consistently interpreted by this Court casts upon him a duty
of compliance with such a requirement. 
He cannot be deemed as excluded from its operation.

Even more recently, in Luy v. Republic,^[5]
this Court again speaking through the Chief Justice, there was a reiteration of
the above doctrine.  Thus:  “It should be noted, however, that to
impart the benefits of said exemption, petitioner’s primary and secondary
education – in addition to birth in the Philippines – must have been received
‘in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality.’ The record shows that the Zamboanga City Chinese High School was not granted
Government recognition until 1958, whereas appellee
finished high school therein in 1959, so that the institution had not,
as yet been recognized by the Government when he completed his primary and
elementary education, as well as when he finished second year high school in
1957.”^[6]

The latest case in point, Lim v. Republic,^[7]
the opinion being penned by Justice Castro, speaks to the same effect.  Thus: 
“Resolving this appeal, it suffices for us to state that the
petition for naturalization was correctly denied, and this upon the ground, inter
alia, that the petitioner has not complied
with the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Naturalization Law * * *.  The Chinese
Kipsi Memorial
School where the petitioner
received his primary and intermediate education is definitely a Chinese school,
as its name imparts.  And altho Exhibit
AA for the petitioner, dated August 28, 1968, which is a certification by
Principal Luis G. Uy, states that the school ‘is recognized by the Philippine
Government, and that the enrolment of this school is not limited to any race or
nationality and Philippine history, government and civics are also taught as
part of the school curriculum,’ nevertheless there is no evidence that it was
‘regularly attended by a sizeable number of Filipino students from whom
applicant could have imbibed Filipino customs and traditions,’ in order to
place him within the exemption of the law * * *.  The petitioner-appellant not being exempt
from the filing of a declaration of intention, and having failed to file one,
his application for naturalization was therefore vitiated by a fatal
jurisdictional defect * * *, which rendered the entire proceeding null and
void.”^[8]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of September
30, 1964 granting the petition for naturalization of petitioner Henry Sy Chuang is set aside and
reversed.  The order of April 29, 1967 declaring such
petitioner a naturalized citizen after his taking the oath of allegiance thus
entitling him to a naturalization certificate is likewise set aside and
reversed.  With costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., took no part.

^[1]
Brief for the Appellant Republic
of the Philippines,
p. 4.

^[2] Ibid,
pp. 4-5.

^[3]
L-26242, October 25, 1968,
25 SCRA 574.

^[4] Ibid,
p. 575.

^[5]
L-28860, July 24, 1970, 34
SCRA 1.

^[6] Ibid,
p. 2.

^[7]
L-30424, January 28, 1971,
37 SCRA 96.

^[8] Ibid,
pp. 97-98.