JOSE G. SYSON, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Syson versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a naturalization case. Jose G. Syson, a Chinese national, asked the Court of First Instance of Manila to declare him a Filipino citizen. The Republic of the Philippines opposed him at every stage. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the strict standards the Supreme Court demands of an applicant for citizenship: full disclosure of personal circumstances, good moral character, the ability to speak and write a required language, the allegation of all former residences, and a lucrative income. It also teaches a procedural lesson on how a withdrawn appeal and an oath taken too early can be undone.

Procedural History

Syson filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila, and Judge Bonifacio Ysip granted it, subject to compliance with Republic Act 530 before he could take the oath of allegiance. The Solicitor General appealed. After the decision, Syson moved for a rehearing to present evidence he said he had inadvertently omitted, and the court granted it. The Government then withdrew its appeal, and the court approved the withdrawal. More than two years after the decision, Syson asked to be allowed to take his oath. The Government opposed, arguing that the decision had never become final because the appeal had been duly made and its withdrawal was improper. Judge Francisco Geronimo ruled that Syson had complied with Republic Act 530, and on the same day Syson took his oath and was issued a certificate of naturalization. The Solicitor General appealed that order. The appeal was properly taken, and the case reached the Supreme Court for review of the entire proceedings from the beginning.

Facts

Syson alleged in his petition, filed in March 1959, that his name had been changed from Chi Chian to Jose G. Syson by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, that he was born in Chingkang, China in August 1917, and that he came to the Philippines in 1933. He said he was married to Ang Eng with three children: Chi Chiong, Maria A. Syson, and Chi Ka. He claimed he could speak and write Spanish and Tagalog, and that as assistant manager of Sy Juen and Company he earned a monthly salary of 250 pesos plus bonus, with an average annual income of 7,599 pesos and 93 centavos from 1956 to 1958.

The Government presented a sworn statement Syson had made before the Bureau of Immigration in March 1958, about a year before his petition, in which he declared five children: Chi Guiap, Chi Chiu, Chi Chiong, Maria Ang Chi, and Chi Ka. After the trial court had already decided in his favor, Syson obtained a rehearing and presented his wife, who testified that Chi Guiap and Chi Chiu had died in China in 1942 and 1949. The Court found this testimony unworthy of credit. The certificate of live birth of Maria Ang Chi, signed by the wife in January 1957, stated that three other children were then living and left blank the space for dead children. The certificate of live birth of Anita Syson, signed by Syson himself in July 1961, stated that six children were then living and again left blank the space for dead children.

At the hearing on his oath, the Government also presented Syson's sworn statement before a supervising agent of the National Bureau of Investigation, in which he disclosed former residences in Dagupan, Pangasinan and on Herran Street in Paco, Manila that were never alleged in his petition. The transcript also showed that he could not answer in Spanish the simple questions put to him by the court, although he answered questions prepared by his own counsel.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower court erred in granting the petition for naturalization despite the applicant's untruthful statement of the number of his children.
• Whether or not the applicant possessed the ability to speak and write Spanish as required by the Naturalization Law.
• Whether or not the failure to allege all former places of residence in the petition is a fatal defect.
• Whether or not the applicant had a lucrative income at the time he filed his petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act Number 473, provides:

The petition must state the name, age, birthplace and residence of each of the children of the petitioner.

The Court used this requirement to hold that omitting two children from the petition was a serious concealment, and that failure to allege all former residences is a fatal defect.

Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 further provides:

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 Court found that Syson concealed his two school-age children precisely to avoid showing that he had failed to enroll them.

Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 also requires of the applicant:

He must be able to speak and write Spanish or English.

The Court applied this language qualification and found that Syson failed it.

On the income requirement, the Naturalization Law requires that the applicant have a lucrative trade or profession, and the Court measured Syson's income against that standard.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Syson did not state the truth about the number of his living children. He had five, not three, when he filed his petition. The Court drew this from his own sworn statement before the Bureau of Immigration and from the two certificates of live birth, and it rejected the wife's testimony about the two dead children as incredible. The Court said such conduct is not in keeping with the requirement that an applicant make a full disclosure of his personal circumstances, and it indicated that he is not possessed of the irreproachable character required by law. It found a design behind the omission: aware that the law requires enrollment of minor children in a government-recognized school, he chose not to mention the two children who were already of school age. A serious doubt was engendered regarding his good moral character, and the Court resolved that doubt in favor of the Government.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that Syson failed the language qualification. He could answer simple questions from his counsel but could not answer correctly in Spanish those propounded by the court, and he could not translate into Tagalog the dictation given to him.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure to allege all former places of residence in the petition is a fatal defect. It quoted its settled rule:

Failure of the petitioner to allege in his petition for naturalization all his former places of residence in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law is a fatal defect that not only warrants dismissal of the petition but, also, affects the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the case.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that Syson's annual income of 8,114 pesos and 57 centavos, with a wife and five children to support, was not sufficient to make him a person having a lucrative trade or profession.

Doctrine

An applicant for naturalization must make a full and truthful disclosure of his personal circumstances in his petition. The names, ages, birthplaces, and residences of all his children must be stated, without distinction between minors and those of age. Concealment of children, especially to avoid the school-enrollment requirement, engenders a serious doubt on good moral character, and that doubt is resolved in favor of the Government. The failure to allege all former places of residence is a fatal defect that warrants dismissal and affects the jurisdiction of the court. The applicant must actually be able to speak and write Spanish or English, tested by the court and not by friendly questions from counsel. And he must have a lucrative trade or profession, measured against the number of persons he must support.

Disposition

The Court set aside the order allowing Syson to take his oath, reversed the decision granting the petition and dismissed it, declared the oath without force and effect, ordered the certificate of naturalization cancelled, and taxed him with the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: concealment of a child in a naturalization petition engenders a serious doubt on good moral character, and that doubt is resolved in favor of the Government. Examiners use this case for the fatal defect of omitting former residences, for the real test of the language qualification, and for the rule that a withdrawn appeal does not make a naturalization decision final.