ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10972   May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />103 Phil 834

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10972. May 28, 1958.]

    In the matter of the petition of PERFECTO GOTAUCO to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. PERFECTO GOTAUCO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

    Bienvenido R. Benitez for Appellee.

    Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor and Solicitor Isidro C. Borromeo for Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CITIZENSHIP; EXEMPTION FROM FILING DECLARATION; ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN IN SCHOOL IF SCHOOL AGE; IMPOSSIBILITY NOT REQUIRED. — If at the filing of applicant for naturalization petitioner’s child is only 2 years, 2 months and 16 days, compliance with the requisite of giving primary and secondary education to his children in addition to the residence-requirement, so as to be exempt from filing declaration of intention, is not necessary. The law does not require impossibility. It certainly needs no presentation of exhaustive argument to envision the ensuing absurd situation were such requirement to be enforced, and it would not only be unjustified but highly unreasonable for the court to require compliance thereof where applicant’s failure is for a cause not in any way attributable to him.


    D E C I S I O N


    FELIX, J.:


    On June 9, 1956, Perfecto Gotauco filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging, among others, that he was born in Manila on April 18, 1925, of Chinese parentage; that he was married to Cristina Lim Uy, also a Chinese national, with whom he had one child, Janet Gotauco, who was born on March 23, 1964; that he received his primary and secondary education at the Anglo-Chinese School and Centro Escolar University and received the degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce from the Far Eastern University, all of which schools are duly recognized by the Government and not exclusive to any race or nationality and where Philippine history and civics are taught as part of their curricula; that as a salesman of the Laher Spring and Tire Corporation, he derives an average annual income of P2,400.00; that he was a co-owner of 2 parcels of land in Manila with an aggregate assessed value of P19,627.50 which he received by inheritance from his parents; that he had resided continuously in the Philippines since birth or for more than 30 years; that he knew how to speak and write English and the Tagalog dialect; that he believes in the principles underlying the Constitution; had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relations with the Government and the community in which he is living; that he had mingled socially with Filipinos, evincing a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions of the Filipinos; that he was not opposed to organized governments nor affiliated with any association or group of persons upholding or teaching doctrines opposed to organized governments; that he was not a polygamist, nor suffering from any contagious disease, neither had he been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. Said petition was supported by a joint affidavit executed by Felicisimo Celis and Mauro David vouching for petitioner’s qualifications and attesting to his good moral character and behavior.

    After the petition was duly published in the Official Gazette and the Voz de Manila, a newspaper of general circulation the same was set for hearing. And on May 31, 1956, the Court rendered judgment finding applicant as possessed of all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications specified by law and thus admitted him to Philippine citizenship. From the decision, the representative of the Solicitor General appealed contending that the Court erred in not finding that petitioner has failed to comply with the pre-requisite of filing a declaration of intention in accordance with Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law; and, consequently, in granting the petition for naturalization.

    There is no controversy as to the fact that petitioner-appellee was born in the Philippines and has continuously resided in this country for a period of more than 30 years, by reason of which he may claim exemption from the filing of a declaration of intention as allowed by Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Act. The representative of the Solicitor General however, in assailing the validity of the decision of the lower court granting the petition of Perfecto Gotauco avers that said exemption may only be availed of where the applicant aside from possessing that residence-requirement also complies with the requisite of giving primary and secondary education to his children. But while this stand finds support in the law as construed by this Court, it is equally true that the aforementioned doctrine is not intended to create an impossibility. In the instant case, appellant’s opposition to the admission of applicant to Philippine citizenship although admittedly the latter possesses all the qualifications for the granting of such privilege, is based on the ground that said applicant failed to enroll his children in a public school or private institution duly recognized by the Government. In this connection, We note that at the time the petition for naturalization was filed, petitioner’s only child, Janet Gotauco, was only 2 years, 2 months and 16 days. It certainly needs no presentation of exhaustive argument to envision the ensuing absurd situation were such requirement to be enforced, and it would not only be unjustified but highly unreasonable for Us to require compliance therewith where applicant’s failure is for a cause not in any way attributable to him. And this Court has already made itself clear on this question when it held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In other words, it is the contention of the oppositor that petitioner is duty bound to file the declaration of intention because he cannot state in the application that he 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, for that is not the case with him. This contention is far from being tenable, for counsel for the oppositor forgets that the additional requirement of said Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Act, ‘which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools, etc.’ refers only to children of school age, as made clear in Section 2, paragraph 6 of said Act" (Quezon Ong Tan v. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-9683, May 30, 1957, cited in Yu Neam v. Republic of the Philippines, supra, p. 677).

    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

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

    G.R. No. L-10972   May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />103 Phil 834


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED