IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ALFREDO T. LUY TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ALFREDO T. LUY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES…

The Solicitor General seeks the reversal of a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental,
granting the application for naturalization, as citizen of the Philippines,
of herein appellee, Alfredo Tan Luy.

The main question for determination in this appeal is whether or
not the lower court has erred in rendering the decision ap­pealed from,
considering the fact that, admittedly, appellee had
not filed the declaration of intention required in Section 5 of Commonwealth
Act No. 473, commonly known as the Revised Naturalization Law.  Appellee maintains,
and the lower court held, that he is exempt from said requirement, he having,
allegedly, been born in the Philippines
and completed his primary, elementary and secondary education at the Zamboanga City
Chinese High School.

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.”^[1]
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.

What is more, it has not been properly established that said
institution is “not limited to any race or nationality.” We must bear
in mind that this characteristic “cannot be presumed from the fact that
the school is recognized by the Government,”^[2]
but must be adequately made out by the appellee, who
has the burden of proof in relation thereto, as one of the basic premises of
the exemption invoked by him.  The
necessity of “clear and convincing” evidence thereon^[3]
is underscored by the adverse implica­tions arising from the term “Chinese”
appearing in the name of said school, and from the fact that it is maintained
by the Chinese Educational Society of Zamboanga,
and that its principal teacher is a Chinese.  The latter’s certification to the effect that
the “school is not limited to any nationality, race or creed,”^[4]
is not a statement of fact, but a mere conclusion, which is incumbent upon the
Court to draw.

Then, too, We are not satisfied that appellee’s
alleged birth in the Philippines
has been duly proven.  Obviously, his
testimony to such effect is insufficient therefor.^[5]
So are his certificate of residence, Exh. V – dated
October 30, 1954, or over 17 years after his alleged birth on August 8, 1937 –
issued by the Bureau of Immigration, and his baptismal certificate – issued on
March 19, 1961 – since the former merely establishes his right to reside in the
Philippines, whereas the latter attests to his baptism at the place and on the
date stated therein – May 15, 1940 – several years after his birth, and neither
is the proper evidence of the date and place of such birth.[1] Again, appellee
has not given a reasonable explanation for the non-production of his birth
certificate.  His testimony to the effect
that the latter had been “misplaced or lost” by the Local Civil
Registrar is, to be sure, far from satisfactory.  Worse still, it bears the earmarks of being
fanciful, inasmuch as the record of births is contained, not in individual
loose leaves, but in well bound, thick and ponderous record books, which cannot
just be “misplaced or lost.”

Lastly, it is conceded that appellee
has not obtained, from the Minister of the Interior of Nationalist China, of
which he is a citizen, or even applied therefrom for
the permission, required by laws of China,
in order that he could validly renounce his allegiance thereto and acquire
another citizenship.  Inasmuch as no
alien may, in general, be naturalized as citizen of the Philippines without
divesting himself of the nationality he has at the time of his naturalization,
by renouncing such nationality, it is clear that appellee’s
petition cannot be granted.[2]

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed,
and another one shall be entered denying the petition for naturalization of
Alfredo T. Luy and dismissing this case, with costs
against him.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur in
the result.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Sec. 6, Com. Act No. 473, as amended by Com. Act No. 535.

^[2]
Lim Cho Kuan v.
Republic, L-21198, Jan. 22, 1966.

^[3] Amando Ong Apacible
v. Republic, L-16987, June 21,
1966.

^[4] Exh. I.

^[5]
Tan v. Republic, L-22077, Feb.
18, 1967.

[1]
De Lara v. Republic, L-18203, May
29, 1964.

[2]
Commonwealth Act No. 473, Sec. 12, Go A. Leng v.
Republic, L-19836, June 21, 1965;
Oh Hek How v. Republic, L-27429, August 27, 1969.