IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF AMANDO ONG APACIBLE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPPINES. AMANDO ONG APACIBLE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,…

On July 18, 1953, Amando Ong Apacible filed a petition for
naturalization with the court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City).
Subsequently, the Office of the Solicitor General filed an opposition
thereto and, after due heating, the court rendered Its decision on
March 30, 1960, granting the petition. The Solicitor General thereafter
interposed the present appeal raising one single question, namely: That
the lower court erred in not declaring that appellee was not exempt
from the duty to file the Declaration of Intention required by law, and
erred, consequently. In assuming jurisdiction over the case
notwithstanding said defect in the proceedings.

The government accepts the following findings of fact made by the trial court:

“From
the evidence presented, the following have been fully established: That
the petitioner’s full name is AMANDO ONG APACIBI£; that his present
place of residence is at No. 179 A. Bonifacio St., Quezon City; that he
was born in the City of Manila, Philippines, on October 5, 1930, that
he has resided in the Philippines continuously since his birth and in
Quezon City for more than a year preceding the filing of this petition;
that he is married to Irraa Tan with whom he has one child named
Araando Ong, Jr., born on Oct. 3, 1958 in the City of Manila, and
residing with him in the aforesaid address; that he is exempt from
filing a declaration of intention because he was born in this country
and has received his primary, secondary and college education in
schools recognized by the government; that he is presently the plant
superintendent of the Union Metal Manufacturing Company from which he
derives an annual salary of P5,400.00; that he believes in the
principles underlying the Constitution of the Philippines; that he has.
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with
the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is
living; that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals
of the Filipinos; that he has all the qualifications required under
Sec. 2, and none of the disqualifications specified under Sec. 4 of the
Revised Naturalization law; that he is not opposed to organized
government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who
uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; that he
is not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of
men’s ideas; that he is neither a polygaraist nor a believer in the
practice of polygamy; that he has not been convicted of any crime
involving moral turpitude; that he is not suffering from any incurable
contagious disease or mental alienation; that the nation of which at
present he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines; that it is
his intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and
to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to
the Republic of China of which at this time he is a subject; that he
will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing
of his petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine
citizenship, that he has not heretofore made any other petition for
citizenship with any court, and, that he can speak and write English
and Tagalog quite fluently.

“Two credible Filipinos, Mrs.
Reraedlos A. Bias and Mr. Marcos Malabanan, Jr., testified in favor of
the petitioner, stating that they personally know said petitioner to be
a person of good repute and morally irreproachable; that he is attached
to the principles underlying the Constitution of the Philippines and in
sympathy with and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the
Philippines; and, that they have observed in the petitioner a sincere
desire to become a citizen of this country and they believe that he
will be an asset if his application is granted.

“To
substantiate the allegations in his petition, the petitioner presented
in evidence all the immigration papers issued to him and to the members
of his family; his certificate of employment; his income tax return for
1958; his medical certificate showing that he is not suffering from any
contagious incurable disease or mental alienation; the birth
certificate of his child; certificates issued by the schools where he
finished his primary and secondary education in the Philippines; his
tax clearance certificate showing that he has paid all taxes due from
him to the government; and clearances from the different government
police agencies showing that there is no derogatory information against
him. All these documents or exhibits have been admitted without
objection on the part of the Solicitor.”

Sections 5 and 6 of the Naturalization Law, as amended, provide:

“Sec. 5. Declaration of intention. – One year prior
to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship,
the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of
Justice (now the Office of the Solicitor General) a declaration under
oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth the name, age,
occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign
residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel
or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines, and the place
of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration.
No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent
residence has been established and a certificate showing the date,
place, and manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant must
also state that he has enrolled his minor children, if any, 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. Each declarant must furnish two
photographs of himself.”

“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. The same shall
be understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor children
of an alien who has declared his Intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.”

It is therefore clear that, under the law, only aliens born in the
Philippines and who have resided in this country for more than thirty
years can apply for Philippine citizenship without the necessity of
complying with the requirement of filing a Declaration of Intention one
year before the filing of such application.

In the present case, appellee admits that he had not filed the
required Declaration of Intention but claims that he is exempt from
doing so because he was born in the Philippines and he had resided
therein for more than thirty years.

The record discloses, however, that appellee did not produce or was
not able to produce his birth certificate because, according to him,
when he went to the local civil registrar of Manila he was informed
that said certificate had been lost or misplaced. He further claims
that, in lieu thereof, he had presented secondary evidence consisting
of Exhibit E-a Landing Certificate of Residence issued to him when he
returned to the Philippines after a visit to China where his father had
taken him for a short stay during his boyhood.

For obvious reasons, the aforesaid Landing Certificate of Residence
must be deemed utterly insufficient to prove that appellee was really
born in the Philippines. The exemption invoked by appellee must be
strictly construed and applied. This being the case, the evidence
presented to make the one claiming the benefit of the exemption fall
under its provisions must be clear and convincing. To accept Exhibit E
as sufficient for such purpose would throw the doors wide open for the
conmission of irregularities in connection with applications of the
nature of the one now before Us.

Having arrived at the above conclusion, We hold that the lower court
committed a reversible error in not declaring that appellee was not
exempt from the legal requirement of filing a Declaration of Intention.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs. Concepcion,

C.J., Reyes, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.