G.R. No. L-4032. October 25, 1952
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHUA PIENG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHUA PIENG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND …
LABRADOR, J.:
of Rizal, Quezon City (Branch III) granting the petition of Chua Pieng to be
admitted a citizen of the Philippines. The record discloses that Chua Pieng was
born in Amoy, China, on June 18, 1909, and came for the first time to the
Philippines on January 3, 1919. Since then ha has resided continuously in this
country, except for four short visits to China. He studied in the Anglo-Chinese
School in Manila, and speaks and writes both Tagalog and English. He has a
perfumery business in Manila with a capital investment of P200.000 and owns a
house and a lot and two other parcels of land in Quezon City.
By his first wife named Lee Siok Cheng he has six children,
namely, Chua Siu Siu, 19 years old, enrolled in Amoy high school, China, in
1942; Carlos Chua, 16 years old, enrolled at the Ateneo de Manila, Manila, in
June, 1948; and Lily Chua, 10 years old, enrolled in the Chinese Republican
School in June, 1946; Manuel Chua, 14 years old, enrolled in the Chinese
Republican School, Manila, in June, 1946; Nelson Chua, 12 years old, enrolled in
the Amoy Elementary Schol, Amoy, China, in June, 1948 and Lily Chua, 10 years
old, enrolled in the Chinese Republican School, Manila.
Lee Siok Cheng died in June, 1945, and Chua Pieng was married
for the second time to Go Ay Ty in February, 1950. No child has .as yet been
born out of this union. Chua Pieng declared that he has never been convicted of
any crime involving moral turpitude; that he is not suffering from any incurable
or contagious disease; that he is neither a communist, nor a polygamist, nor a
believer in the practice of polygamy. He further declared that he believes in
the principles underlying the Constitution of the Philippines, and that he has
associated or mingled socially with Filipinos. He presented two witnesses to
corroborate his declaration as to his business and social activities in the
Philippines, and both of them testified that they know of no impediment to the
petition of Chua Pieng for citizenship.
The original petition of Chua Pieng was filed on March 29,
1949. Prior to this petition he did not file his declaration of intention to
become a citizen of the Philippines as required by section 5 of the Revised
Naturalization Law. The Court of First Instance of Rizal found him fully
qualified and granted his petition, and against this decision the Solicitor
General has prosecuted this appeal, contending that Chua Pieng can not be
admitted for naturalization for two reasons, namely, because he has not enrolled
all his minor children of school age in the public schools of the Philippines or
in the private schools thereof recognized by the Bureau of Private Education,
and because he failed to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of
the Philippines, as required by section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law,
prior to filing his application.
With respect to the first objection raised by the Solicitor
General, petitioner’s counsel contends that petitioner’s sons, Chua Siu Siu and
Nelson Chua, could not return to the Philippines on account of the war in China
and due to the lack of transportation facilities from Amoy to the Philippines.
Counsel for petitioner has also presented a motion for new trial to admit as
newly discovered evidence a letter (Annex B) of Dee Han King, father-in-law of
petitioner, to the effect that the above two children of the petitioner died in
China on December 5, 1949, and February 24, 1950, respectively.
There is no explanation given by the petitioner why his two
children, Chua Siu Siu and Nelson Chua, have been in China. Their existence and
stay in China have been disclosed by petitioner with reluctance, without any
plausible reason or excuse. In the original application filed by petitioner with
the Court of First Instance on March 29, 1949, no mention of the existence of
these two children is made. In his statement before the National Board of
Investigation on June 2, 1949, their names are also improperly omitted, the
petitioner stating that he had only four children by his first wife (Exhibit 2).
His explanation in court was that his lawyer told him that it was not necessary
to mention in his application the two children that had resided in Amoy, China,
but that later on he was told by his counsel that it was necessary to include
them, so he filed an amended petition including their names.
The petitioner must have sent his two children, Chua Siu Siu
and Nelson Chua, to China to study, because when they went there they were still
of school age. Chua Siu Siu was in China since 1942, and Nelson Chua in June,
1948. These children must have gone there prior to December, 1941. If petitioner
sent them soon after the outbreak of the war, it must have been for the same
purpose or with the same intention. The statement made in petitioners’ brief
that it was impossible for him to bring them back to the Philippines because of
the war is not borne out by the evidence submitted. We can take judicial notice
of the fact that after the surrender of Japan in 1945 some two or three years
passed before China was occupied by the Communists. It was not impossible then
for the petitioner to bring them back to the Philippines. From all these
circumstances the least we can say is that petitioner has failed to prove
satisfactorily that he had always desired to enroll all his children in the
public or private schools in the Philippines. He has also enrolled two of his
children in the Chinese Republican School in Manila, an exclusive Chinese
school. From these we conclude that he has failed to comply with the requirement
contained in paragraph 6, section 2, of the Revised Naturalization Law.
“SEC. 2. Qualifications. * * *:
“Sixth. He 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 Court, in the case of Hao Lian Chu vs. Republic of the
Philippines, (87 Phil., 668; 48 Off. Gaz., 1780), held:
“Paragraph 6, section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law
provides that the applicant for naturalization 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 * * *. The trial judge declared that as petitioner could
not enroll Magdalena in the Philippines, because she was absent and was not
under parental care, the requirement of the law as to children’s education may
be deemed to have been substantially fulfilled.“This court believes that such requirement is important. The
legislator evidently holds that all the minor children of an applicant for
citizenship must learn Philippine history, government and civics, inasmuch as
upon naturalization of their father they ipso facto acquire the privilege of
Philippine citizenship. To excuse the applicant from this requirement it must be
shown that there was physical impossibility for him to bring Magdalena
here—impossibility which has not been shown in this case.”
To the same effect is the decision of this court in the case of
Tan Hi vs. Republic of the Philippines* (G. R. No. L-3354, promulgated on
January 25, 1951). The application of the petitioner must, therefore, be denied.
Another ground for denying it is the fact that he has failed to file his
declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, when he does
not fail within the exemption provided by section 6 of the Revised
Naturalization Law.
“SEC. 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration
of intention.—Persons born, in the Philippines and have received their primary
and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government
and not limited to any race or nationality, and those who have resided
continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before
filing their application, may be naturalized without having to make a
declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act.
To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant
has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public
schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to
any race or nationality. * * *” (Commonwealth Act No. 535, amending section 6 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473; italics ours.)
The petition for new trial must also be denied. The subsequent
death of petitioner’s children at the time of the pendency of the proceedings
for his naturalization can give no benefit nor serve purpose to the petitioner. The requirement of the law is that he must send all his children to the public
schools or private schools in the Philippines which are recognized by the
Government and which are not limited to any race or nationality. The petitioner
undoubtedly failed to comply with this requirement while all his children were
still living; the death of two of them, who were not in the Philippines, can not
operate as an excuse for non-compliance with the requirements of the law.
The decree appealed from should be, as it hereby is, reversed,
and the petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner-appellee.
Paras, C, J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, and
Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.
* 88 Phil., 117.