February 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > February 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9097. February 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Petition for Admission to Philippine Citizenship: DEE SAM, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-9097.  February 29, 1956.]

In the Matter of the Petition for Admission to Philippine Citizenship: DEE SAM, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

REYES, A., J.:

On May 6, 1952, Dee Sam alias Samuel Dee, a Chinese subject,’ filed an application for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the usual proceedings, the application was granted on January 27, 1953 and it was ordered that in due course and upon compliance with the requisites prescribed by law a naturalization certificate issue to the Petitioner. On February 16, 1955, more than two years from the granting of the application for naturalization, the applicant petitioned the court to allow him to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen. In his petition, he alleged, among other things, that he had “continuously resided in the Philippines since the promulgation of the decision”. However, at the hearing he admitted that in 1953 he made a trip to Saigon where he remained for two weeks to settle, according to him, the estate of his father who had died in Paris. In view of this admission, the Solicitor General opposed the petition. But the court, after hearing, granted it just the same, holding that Petitioner’s short absence from the Philippines in 1953 was not violative of Republic Act No. 530. From that resolution the Republic of the Philippines has appealed to this Court.

Sections 1 and 2 of said Republic Act No. 530 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“SECTION 1.  The provisions of existing laws notwithstanding, no petition for Philippine citizenship shall be heard by the courts until after six months from the publication of the application required by law, nor shall any decision granting the application become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing, with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied, and so finds, that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) had dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, (4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies.

“SEC. 2.  After the finding mentioned in section one, the order of the court granting citizenship shall be registered and the oath provided by existing laws shall be taken by any applicant, whereupon, and not before, he will be entitled to all the privileges of a Filipino citizen.”

The above provisions postpone for two years the execution of the decision granting an application for Philippine citizenship. The purpose obviously is to put the applicant on probation for the length of time, and thereafter he is to be invested with the privilege of Philippine citizenship only if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that since the granting of his application for naturalization he (1) has not left the Philippines, (2) had dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, (4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. Strict compliance with these conditions is essential if the purpose of the law is to be achieved, so that a violation of any of them bars applicant’s admission to Philippine citizenship.

Counsel for applicant, however, calls attention to the case of Luis Uy vs. Republic of the Philippines * G. R. No. L-7054, promulgated April 29, 1955, where this Court said — albeit by way of dictum — that the requirement as to non-absence might possibly admit of some exceptions, as where the applicant is sent abroad on a Government mission, or kidnapped or forcibly removed from the Philippines or obliged to go and stay abroad to undergo an operation to save his life. But it is obvious that the present case does not come under any of those exceptions, and further relaxation of the aforesaid requirement in deference to private need or convenience should be avoided so as not to open the door to evasions and render the law ineffective.

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is revoked and set aside and applicant’s petition for the taking of oath denied, with costs against the Appellant.

 

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

   *  96 Phil., 871




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






February-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9307. February 9, 1956.] HELEN SMITH and SVEN SMITH, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE RUPERTO KAPUNAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, HONORABLE RAMON ICASIANO, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila and TERESA PEYER, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7200. February 11, 1956.] JUAN BAUTISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MANDALUYONG, RIZAL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6971. February 17, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PETRONIO REMERATA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8091. February 17, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO PUYAL, ET AL., Defendants, MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC., bondsman-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8491. February 17, 1956.] HERMENEGILDO CALO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN and LUIS PEGGY, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8673. February 18, 1956.] PEDRO P. ARONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MIGUEL RAFFI�AN and A. INCLINO, as City Mayor and City Treasurer of Cebu City, respectively, Defendants-Appellees. [G.R. No. L-8674. February 18, 1956.] JOHN D. YOUNG, FELIX A. BARBA, PEDRO P. ARONG, SIXTO J. ARCILLA, AHING LEE, JESUS C. OSME�A, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MIGUEL RAFFI�AN, and JESUS E. ZABATE, as City Mayor and Acting City Treasurer of Cebu City, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7255. February 21, 1956.] BIBIANA DEFENSOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. VICENTE BRILLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7548. February 27, 1956.] JOHANNA HOFER BORROMEO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Dr. VENUSTIANO H. J. BORROMEO, DR. JOSE C. BORROMEO and ESTATE OF DR. MAXIMO BORROMEO, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7881. February 27, 1956.] CAYETANO B. LIWANAG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. ROBERT S. HAMILL, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7898. February 27, 1956.] MASBATE CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7953. February 27, 1956.] JOSE FRANCISCO and ABELARDO FRANCISCO (Legal Heirs of Carlos N. Francisco, deceased) and CEFERINO FRANCISCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8191. February 27, 1956.] DIOSDADO A. SITCHON, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8397. February 27, 1956] RICARDO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8500. February 27, 1956] FELINO PE�A, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8513. February 27, 1956] SANTIAGO BROTAMONTE, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8516. February 27, 1956] ERNESTO NAVARRO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as the City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8620. February 27, 1956] AMADO SAYO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8455. February 27, 1956.] GAUDENCIO MANIGBAS, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, vs. JUDGE CALIXTO P. LUNA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents. JUDGE CALIXTO P. LUNA, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-5893. February 28, 1956.] CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA y LOPEZ MANZANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EL HOGAR FILIPINO, INC., MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. and ERNEST BERG, Defendants; EL HOGAR FILIPINO, INC. and MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6767. February 28, 1956.] DOLORES VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAIME L. PORTA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6992. February 28, 1956.] COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. JUNIOR WOMEN�S CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8105. February 28, 1956.] CONSTANTINO VIVERO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FELIPE R. SANTOS, ET AL., Defendants. EUGENIO BALO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6630. February 29, 1956.] ALFONSO RILI and TRINIDAD VDA. DE MIRAFLORES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CIRIACO CHUNACO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-6639-40. February 29, 1956.] CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIA SANTOS and her husband JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellants. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALEJO GADDI, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6998. February 29, 1956.] CLARO RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AMADEO MATUTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7131. February 29, 1956.] ISIDRO P. SIBUG, and MAXIMA SY-JUECO, Plaintiff�s-Appellants, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, PROVINCE OF BULACAN, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7380. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LOURDES RAMILO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7458. February 29, 1956.] TEOFILA SALVADOR, Petitioner, vs. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ETC., and THE YEK TONG LIN FIRE & INSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7668. February 29, 1956.] PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS, Petitioner, vs. PASUMIL WORKERS UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7788. February 29, 1956.] NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. NARIC WORKERS� UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8079. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Second Branch of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, 12th Judicial District, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8175. February 29, 1956.] DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs. UNITED EMPLOYEE�S WELFARE ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8492. February 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Declaration of the Civil Status of: LOURDES G. LUKBAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8531. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SANTIAGO SIGUENZA, accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8817. February 29, 1956.] FELIX ASTURIAS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8942. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE DE LARA, accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8963. February 29, 1956.] MARIANO GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DONATO AMON, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8965. February 29, 1956.] CATALINA M. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO M. DE LEON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8965. February 29, 1956.] CATALINA M. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO M. DE LEON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9097. February 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Petition for Admission to Philippine Citizenship: DEE SAM, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8093. February 11, 1956.] DOMINADOR NICOLAS and OLIMPIA MATIAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. VICENTA MATIAS, AMADO CORNEJO, JR., JOSE POLICARPIO and MATILDE MANUEL, Defendants-Appellees.