November 1950 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1950 > November 1950 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-3265 November 29, 1950 - HAO LIAN CHU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
087 Phil 668:
087 Phil 668:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-3265. November 29, 1950.]
HAO LIAN CHU (alias HAO PUSOY), Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and Solicitor Isidro C. Borromeo, for Appellant.
Rustico Navarro and Miguel Manguerra, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; APPLICANT FOR NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENT TO ENROLL ALL MINOR CHILDREN IN PHILIPPINE SCHOOLS IS IMPORTANT. — Naturalization denied a Chinese applicant because of his minor children has not enrolled in Philippine Schools. Allegations that such minor child has lived since infancy in China does not excuse non-compliance with requirement of law.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
Despite the opposition submitted by the provincial fiscal, the Court of First Instance of Marinduque approved the petition for naturalization of Hao Lian Chu alias Hao Pusoy, admittedly a Chinese resident in the Philippines for more than forty years.
The Solicitor-General claims errors because: (a) Petitioner has not submitted a certificate of the Ministry of Interior of the Chinese Government permitting him to renounce his Chinese nationality and (b) Petitioner has not enrolled all his minor children in Philippine schools as required by law.
The first ground has no merit. 1
As to the second ground, it appears that of the nine children of petitioner, only one, Magdalena, a minor, has not studied in the Philippines because she has lived from infancy in China; that she is actually enrolled in an English school in Amoy; and that all the other eight children of petitioner have attended public schools and schools recognized by the Philippine Government.
Paragraph 6, section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides that the applicant for naturalization "must have enrolled his minor children of school age 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 . . .." 2 The trial judge declared that as petitioner could not enroll Magdalena in the Philippines, because she was absent and was not under parental care, the requirement of the law as to children’s education may be deemed to have been substantially fulfilled.
This court believes that such requirement is important. The legislator evidently holds that all the minor children of an applicant for citizenship must learn Philippine history, government and civics, inasmuch as upon naturalization of their father they ipso facto acquire the privilege of Philippine citizenship. 3 To excuse the applicant from this requirement it must be shown that there was physical impossibility for him to bring Magdalena here 4 — impossibility which has not been shown in this case.
Needless to say, an applicant for naturalization must comply with the requirements and conditions specified by law.
The decision will be reversed and the application for naturalization denied, with costs.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.
The Solicitor-General claims errors because: (a) Petitioner has not submitted a certificate of the Ministry of Interior of the Chinese Government permitting him to renounce his Chinese nationality and (b) Petitioner has not enrolled all his minor children in Philippine schools as required by law.
The first ground has no merit. 1
As to the second ground, it appears that of the nine children of petitioner, only one, Magdalena, a minor, has not studied in the Philippines because she has lived from infancy in China; that she is actually enrolled in an English school in Amoy; and that all the other eight children of petitioner have attended public schools and schools recognized by the Philippine Government.
Paragraph 6, section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides that the applicant for naturalization "must have enrolled his minor children of school age 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 . . .." 2 The trial judge declared that as petitioner could not enroll Magdalena in the Philippines, because she was absent and was not under parental care, the requirement of the law as to children’s education may be deemed to have been substantially fulfilled.
This court believes that such requirement is important. The legislator evidently holds that all the minor children of an applicant for citizenship must learn Philippine history, government and civics, inasmuch as upon naturalization of their father they ipso facto acquire the privilege of Philippine citizenship. 3 To excuse the applicant from this requirement it must be shown that there was physical impossibility for him to bring Magdalena here 4 — impossibility which has not been shown in this case.
Needless to say, an applicant for naturalization must comply with the requirements and conditions specified by law.
The decision will be reversed and the application for naturalization denied, with costs.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Parado v. Republic of the Philippines (G. R. No. L-2628, May 6, 1950; 86 Phil., 340).
2. Commonwealth Act No. 473 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535.
3. See 15, Commonwealth Act No. 473.
4. Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. Tan v. Republic of the Philippines 84 Phil., 829.
