IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG KUE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ONG KUE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELL…

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental granting Ong Kue’s application for naturalization.

The record shows that applicant Ong Kue, a Chinese citizen who has
lived in the Philippines since 1924, applied for citizenship on
December 9, 1957 in the court below without having filed a declaration
of his intention as provided in section 5 of the Revised Naturalization
Law. Finding that the applicant has all the qualifications necessary
for naturalization and none of the disqualifications provided for by
law, the lower court, on August 16, 1958, rendered a decision granting
the application. From that decision the Government has appealed.

Appellant’s lone contention, as stated in the Solicitor General’s
brief, is that applicant is not exempt from filing a declaration of
intention which is an absolute prerequisite to naturalization. It is
argued that while applicant has continuously resided in the Philippines
for more than 30 years before filing his application, he has not,
however, complied with the additional requirement of giving primary and
secondary education to all his children in the schools prescribed by
law, in that two of his 11 children, namely, Ong Pick Du and Ong Eng
Soy, have not been shown to have finished secondary education.

There can hardly be any dispute that applicant’s two children
aforementioned, who were already of acre at the time of the filing of
the petition for naturalization, have not completed their secondary
education. Applicant in his testimony declared that these children
studied in high school but he did not testify that they finished their
secondary education. What is more, the petition itself alleges in
paragraph 9 thereof that Ong Pick Du “had studied her second year high
school in the Chinese Commercial School in Iloilo City, Philippines, a
school duly recognized by the government where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught”, while Ong Eng Soy finished his
primary and intermediate education in the same school “and had studied
for about two years in the Fara-on institute, Sagay, Negros Occidental.”

Applicant, however, thru counsel, claims in his brief, as well as in
his motion to remand the case to the lower court for reception of
additional evidence, which was filed earlier, that he has strong and
valid reasons to explain why his two children failed to finish high
school. He thus alleges that his daughter Ong Pick Du got married in
1950 thus releasing her from his parental authority, while Ong Eng Soy
has been in ill health since 1957 and for that reason had to stop his
schooling. In support of these allegations, applicant has submitted the
photostatic copy of the marriage contract between Ong Pick Du and Chiu
Tiong An, and the medical certificate issued by the Municipal Health
Officer of the municipality of Sagay regarding Ong Eng Soy’s state of
health.

In our opinion, the reasons advanced by applicant
for the failure of his two eldest children to finish secondary
education, if established or proved to be true, may constitute valid
and sufficient reasons to bring the case within the purview of the
decision of this Court in the case of Pritchard vs. Republic
(81 Phil., 244). In that case, this Court has ruled that an applicant
may be exempt from the requirement that he give his children
opportunity to finish primary and secondary education, when there are
valid reasons that render impossible for him to comply with said
provision. (See also Yu Soon Seng vs. Republic, 105
Phil., 558; 57 Off. Gaz. [25] 4595.) We think it is, therefore, to the
best interest of all the parties concerned that this case be remanded
to the lower court for the reception of evidence regarding the alleged
non-compliance of the educational requirement as provided in section 6
of the Revised Naturalization Law. This is to avoid the necessity of
filing a new application and the consequent repetition of the
proceedings already had.

Wherefore, the case is ordered
remanded to the court of origin and that court is hereby instructed to
reopen the hearing and give the parties new opportunity to establish or
disprove the existence of circumstances as would justify the alleged
non-compliance of the educational requirement provided in the Revised
Naturalization Law. So ordered without costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.