IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP JOSE LEELIN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur pronounced Jose
Leelin “entitled to become a Filipino citizen,” and ordered the issuance of the
corresponding naturalization certificate and its registration in the proper
civil registry, as required in section 10 of Act No. 3753. The provincial fiscal
appealed and the Solicitor General makes the following assignment of errors:

“I

“The lower court erred in finding that appellee speaks and
writes well English, Tagalog and Bicol, and in not finding he had failed to
satisfactorily establish that he has this particular qualification prescribed by
law.

“II

“The lower court erred in not finding that appellee has failed
to establish satisfactorily that the laws of China grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof and hence, he is disqualified
for Philippine citizenship under section 4 (h) of the Revised
Naturalization Law.

“III

“The lower court erred in considering Exhibits I and I-1, the
same being immaterial, irrelevant and inconsistent with the present petition for
naturalization, and, in granting appellee Philippine
citizenship.

On the first assigned error, the undisputed evidence shows that
the applicant was born on February 9, 1924, in Tigaon, Camarines Sur, of a
Filipino mother and a Chinese father, and that he finished high school at Far
Eastern University and went through the lower grades in the Tigaon Elementary
School. The petitioner testified that he speaks and writes Tagalog, Bicol,
English and a little Spanish, adding that the idioms spoken at home are Tagalog
and Bicol. He also has shown that he is a merchant with an invested capital of
not less than P5,000.

Applicant’s positive assurance coupled with his schooling, his
age and parentage, and his having been born in the Philippines and having lived
in this country all his life, is more than satisfactory proof of his proficiency
to a required degree in English, Tagalog and/or Bicol. If the opponent was not
convinced by applicant’s testimony, he himself could, and should, have subjected
the petitioner to a practical test. Only thus could he confirm or dispel his
doubts. An “actual demonstration” made at the instance of petitioner’s attorney
might be impugned as having been rehearsed.

On the second assigned error, it suffices to say that in
previous cases, a translation of the Chinese Naturalization Law, made and
certified to be correct by the Chinese Consulate General in Manila, was admitted
and considered sufficient evidence to establish that the laws of China permit
Filipinos to become citizens of that country.

The foregoing conclusions make superfluous a discussion of the
third assignment of error.

The decision of the lower court is affirmed without costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.