IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF YU KAY GUAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. YU KAY GUAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND AP…

Appeal taken by the Government from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu granting Yu Kay Guan’s petition for naturalization.

Petitioner’s evidence shows that he was born on February 25, 1913 of
Chinese parents in Amoy, China; that in July, 1922, he came to the
Philippines and resided in Manila until 1930; that in January, 1931, he
went to reside in the City of Cebu; that before the outbreak of the
last world war, the petitioner went on short visits to China—in 1932 he
went for vacation to Amoy where he stayed for about two months; in 1934
he went to Haiching and stayed there for three months; and in 1936 he
went to Hongkong for a month’s vacation—returning after every trip to
the City of Cebu, his legal residence.

Petitioner claims
that in August, 1934, he married Siao So Lan, also a Chinese subject,
with whom he has five children, namely, Yu Siu Tin, born in Haiching,
China on February 4, 1936; John Siao Yu, born in Cebu City on June 25,
1938; Libby Siao Yu, born in Cebu City on July 16, 1939; Anthony Siao
Yu, born in Cebu City on July 14, 1952; and Joseph Siao Yu, born in
Cebu City on May 20, 1946. All of these children are presently enrolled
in institutions of learning in Cebu City, duly recognized by the
Government and not limited to any particular race or nationality, where
Philippine history, civics, and government are taught as part of the
curriculum.

The Solicitor-General does not contest the
findings of the lower court to the effect that petitioner has complied
with the residence, occupation, language, education, good conduct and
moral character requirements prescribed by the naturalization law. The
only ground for the appeal is that, according to the Solicitor-General,
the petitioner has failed to establish satisfactorily his marital
relationship and the filiation of his alleged first three children, Yu
Siu Tin, John Siao Yu and Libby Siao Yu.

As to petitioner’s
alleged marriage, during the hearing, the petitioner testified under
oath that he married Siao So Lan, in Haiching, China, in August, 1934.
Thus, petitioner’s Alien Certificate of Registration states that he is
married to Siao So Lan, and, likewise, the latter s Alien Certificate
of Registration shows that she is married to Yu Kay Guan, the
petitioner. These are official documents which were issued in due
course by the immigration authorities and unless their genuineness is
assailed we have to give them probative value (Victoriano Yap Subieng vs.
Republic of the Philippines, 102 Phi)., 892; 56 Off. Gaz, [14] 2940.)
Aside from the fact that petitioner’s declaration regarding his
marriage was corroborated, no evidence to rebut it was adduced in the
court below, and, therefore, it has to be taken as it is.

With respect to petitioner’s alleged first child Yu Siu Tin, the doubt
as to his true filiation stems principally from the fact that while
petitioner declared that the said child was born in Haiching, China, on
February 4, 1936, he also testified that he left the Philippines for
China only on three occasions: (1) in 1932 when he went to Amoy for two
months stay; (2) in 1934 when he stayed in Haiching for three months;
and (3) in 1936 when he went to Hongkong for a month’s vacation. Under
these circumstances, it seems impossible for Yu Siu Tin, born February
4, 1936 to have been begotten by the petitioner. The doubt as to the
reality of the alleged relation becomes all the more strengthened by
the fact that in the petitioner’s income tax return for the year 1956,
Yu Siu Tin was not included in the list of minor children entitled to
exemption, although at that time he was only twenty years old, still a
minor.

As to John Siao Yu and Libby Siao Yu, their alleged
filiation is made doubtful in that while these children were declared
to have been born in Cebu City on June 25, 1938 and July 16, 1939,
respectively, it appears in the Immigration Certificate of petitioner’s
wife that she was issued by our immigration authorities a Landing
Certificate of Residence only on August 31, 1939, which means that she
landed in the country on or shortly before that date. Adding to this
the fact that the birth certificates of the said children were not
introduced in evidence and that no explanation whatsoever was given
regarding Such failure, their filiation cannot just be taken for
granted.

On the whole, it appears that the petitioner,
failed to satisfactorily prove the filiation of the three children Yu
Sin Tin, John Siao Yu and Libby Siao Yu. Since section 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Law grants citizenship to the wife and minor
children of an applicant for naturalization who is found qualified
under the law, it is of paramount importance that before the petitioner
is granted Philippine citizenship the filiation of all his alleged
children be first indubitably established.

Wherefore, the
decision of the lower court granting Philippine citizenship to
petitioner is hereby reversed, without prejudice.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J., concurs in the result.