Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

089 Phil 4:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-1687. May 23, 1951.]

CIPRIANO KING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for Appellant.

Jose J. Roy and Catalino V. Saguyod for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; RESIDENCE; TERM CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED. — The residence required in section 8 of the Revised Naturalization Law need not be actual, physical or material. It would be unreasonable to require an applicant for citizenship to be physically present or actually residing in the province one year immediately before he filed his petition. The residence of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition means the legal residence from which he could or might depart or be absent temporarily for a certain purpose and to which he always intended to return. Animus revertendi, which is the criterion for determining or fixing one’s domicile in a country other than that of his actual residence, may be taken into account in the determination of his domestic residence.

2. ID.; ID.; EDUCATION REQUIREMENT. — The requirement of enrollment in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, as required in section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, of the children of a petitioner for naturalization could not be exacted from one whose children are not of school age. The same reason may be applied to the applicant who, at the time of the hearing of his petition, was a senior high school student in the Gregg Business Institute. He could not be required to allege and prove that he had received his secondary education in that Institute when he was only a senior at the time of the filing and hearing of his application. There is a substantial compliance with the education requirement provided by law.

3. ID.; ID.; CHINESE LAW OF NATIONALITY, CANNOT BE READ INTO OUR LAW. — The requirement of the Chinese Law of Nationality that Chinese subjects or citizens desiring to become naturalized citizens of another country must secure the permission of the Chinese Ministry of the Interior, can not be read into our law. (Parado v. Republic, L- 2628, 6 May 1950.)

4. ID.; ID.; PROPERTY QUALIFICATION. — The date of issuance of a certificate of title by the registrar of deeds, which was posterior to the filing of applicant’s petition for naturalization, is always subsequent to that of the acquisition of the property covered by said certificate of title, and is not sufficient to overcome the applicant’s testimony that at the time of the filing of his petition for naturalization he was the owner of the real property mentioned therein.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is an appeal from a decree granting the petition of Cipriano King to become a citizen of the Philippines under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535.

Cipriano King was born of Chinese parents in the municipality of Victoria, province of Tarlac, on 16 September 1925 (Exhibit A). With the exception of two visits to China for three and four or five months when he was 7 and 9 years of age, respectively, he has resided continuously in the Philippines. He completed his elementary education at the Victoria Elementary School in Tarlac (Exhibit C), enrolled at the Macabulos Memorial High School in Victoria, Tarlac, for his secondary education (Exhibit C-1), and transferred to the Gregg Business Institute where he was senior high school student on 13 July 1948 (Exhibit C-2). He speaks and writes English and Tagalog. He is the registered owner of a lot and a house erected thereon located at No. 929 Magdalena Street, Manila, acquired with money advanced by his father as inheritance, from which he derives a monthly rental or income of P400. He is not a believer in polygamy, not opposed to organized government, not suffering from any contagious or incurable disease and has not been convicted of any crime.

It is claimed that the applicant does not have the residence qualification of one year immediately preceding the filing of his petition. It is argued that the term "resided" means actual and not the legal or constructive residence. The residence required in section 8 of the Revised Naturalization Law need not be actual, physical or material. It would be unreasonable to require an applicant for citizenship to be physically present or actually residing in the province one year immediately before he filed his petition. The residence of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition means the legal residence (animus manendi) from which he could or might depart or be absent temporarily for a certain purpose and to which he always intended to return. Animus revertendi which is the criterion for determining or fixing one’s domicile in a country other than that of his actual residence may be taken into account in the determination of his domestic residence. There is no question that the applicant has the intention of going back to the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac, where his father resides and owns a rice mill. His residence in Manila is just for the purpose of studying. The situation pictured by the appellant in its brief does not obtain in the present case, because the applicant has resided in Victoria since his birth. The residence of the applicant in Victoria since birth is sufficient time to give the citizens of that town knowledge of his habits, tendencies and conduct which would enable them to object if the applicant be unworthy to become a naturalized citizen of this country. Hence there is no merit in the claim that the petition filed in the court of first instance of Tarlac by the applicant was not filed with the proper court as required by law.

It is also claimed that the applicant has failed to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, as required in section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The applicant counters with the contention that he is not required to do so, because he was born in the Philippines and received his primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, as required in section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. We have held that the requirement of enrollment in such schools of the children of a petitioner for naturalization could not be exacted from one whose children are not of school age. 1 The same reason may be applied to the applicant who, at the time of the hearing of his petition, was a senior high school student in the Gregg Business Institute. He could not be required to allege and prove that he had received his secondary education in that institute when he was only a senior at the time of the filing and hearing of his application. We are of the opinion that there is a substantial compliance with the education requirement provided by law.

It is further claimed that the applicant does not own real estate in the Philippines valued at not less than P5,000, or does not have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation, as required in section 2, paragraph 4, of the Revised Naturalization Law. The appellant makes much out of the fact that at the time of the filing of the petition in this case the applicant was not the owner of the lot and house which he later on acquired with money advanced by his father and draws the inference that the applicant is not of good moral character. According to the appellant, the applicant lacks good moral character, because he alleged under oath on 14 March 1947, when he signed his application, that he was the owner of a real estate in the city of Manila, when in truth and in fact he was not. The transfer certificate of title evidencing his ownership of the lot and a house erected thereon was issued on 13 June 1947. The fact that the certificate of title of the property was issued on the last mentioned date does not necessarily mean that he was not the owner thereof on 15 March 1947, the date of the filing of the petition. The date of issuance of the certificate of title by the registrar of deeds is always subsequent to that of the acquisition of the property, and is not sufficient to overcome the applicant’s testimony that at the time of the filing of his petition for naturalization he was the owner of the real property mentioned therein.

As regards the requirement of the Chinese Law of Nationality that Chinese subjects or citizens desiring to become naturalized citizens of another country must secure the permission of the Chinese Ministry of the Interior, we have held already in the case of Parado v. Republic of the Philippines, 47 Off. Gaz. Supp. (12), 19, that such requirement cannot be read into our law.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, without costs.

Paras C. J., Feria, Bengzon, Tuason and Jugo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Disiento. La causa debe ser sobreseida por la razon de que el solicitante no ha presentado la declaracion de su intencion de adquirir la ciudadania filipina un año antes de presentar su solicitud. El solicitante contiende que no esta obligado a presentar tal declaracion porque el ha nacido en Filipinas y ha estudiado la primera y segunda enseñanza, lo que no es cierto, porque cuando presento su solicitud solamente era estudiante de cuarto año de la High School, y apenas tenia 22 años. En el asunto de Florentino Uy Boco contra Republica de Filipinas, promulgada en 23 de enero de 1950, y en el asunto de Jose Son contra Republica de Filipinas, promulgada en 29 de noviembre, 1950, este Tribunal sobreseyo las solicitudes porque los recurrentes no habian estudiado mas que el segundo año de High School y no habian completado el estudio de la instruccion secundaria.

En 13 de Julio de 1948, el solicitante no comenzaba mas que el cuarto año. Solamente habia estudiado las tres cuartas partes de la instruccion secundaria, un año mas de estudio que el de los dos solicitantes en las dos causas citadas. No habia completado aun el estudio de la segunda enseñanza. Declarar que un estudiante de cuarto año de High School cumple sustancialmente la exigencia de la ley es abrir una brecha por la cual entrarian personas que no estan en condiciones de obtener la ciudadania filipina. Los estudiantes matriculados en el cuarto año de derecho, de medicina, farmacia, etc. reclamarian tener derecho para sujetarse a los examenes del gobierno.

En la primera causa eitada, este Tribunal dijo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El articulo 6, Ley No. 473 del Commonwealth tal como ha sido enmendado por la Ley No. 535 del Commonwealth es clara: no obliga la presentacion de la declaracion de proposito (a) a las personas nacidas en Filipinas y que hayan recibido instruccion primaria y secundaria, y (b) a aquellas que hayan residido en Filipinas por un periodo de 30 años o mas. Y como el solicitante no ha recibido la instruccion primaria y secundaria (ademas de haber nacido en Filipinas), debe presentar su declaracion de intencion de hacerse ciudadano filipino a la Oficina de Justicia como cualquier otro solicitante. No esta incluido entre los exceptuados. El texto ingles es mas claro aun, dice textualmente: "Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public schools . . . ." El que solamente ha estudiado hasta el segundo año de la escuela secundaria (High School) no ha recibido la instruccion secundaria; solamente ha estudiado la mitad de ella. Si el solicitante hubiera estudiado la primera y segunda enseñanza (y no parte solamente de la secundaria), podria presentar su solicitud sin necesidad de esta declaracion de proposito de hacerse ciudadano filipino."cralaw virtua1aw library

La Ley de Ciudadania debe interpretarse de acuerdo con su letra y espiritu.

Reitero que debe sobreseerse la solicitud. .

Montemayor, J., concurs.

Footnote

1. In re Application of Rafael Yrostorza, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. (11), 179; 83 Phil., 727 Yee Bo Mann v. Republic of the Philippines, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. (11), 201; Tan v. Republic of the Philippines, 84 Phil., 829.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252