Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > December 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12408 December 28, 1959 - LEE CHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

106 Phil 755:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12408. December 28, 1959.]

LEE CHO alias SEM LEE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

A. P. Deen and Eddy A. Deen for Appellee.

Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor and Solicitor Conrado T. Limcaoco for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; APPLICANT’S DECLARATION OF INTENTION IS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS. — Before an applicant may apply for Philippine citizenship, he is required by law to file a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen one year prior to the filing of his application unless he is exempt from complying with said requirement (Section 6, Naturalization Law). This section exempts one from filing a declaration of intention in two cases: (a) if he is born in the Philippines and has received primary and secondary education in any school recognized by the government; and (b) if he has continuously resided in the Philippines for a period of 30 years or more provided that he has given primary and secondary education to all his children either in a public school or in private schools recognized by the government.

2. ID.; APPLICANT’S CHILDREN BE AFFORDED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; MARRIAGE AS REASON UNTENABLE. — Where the evidence shows that one of the children of the applicant has only reached grade five and no explanation was given why no secondary education was afforded her which requires the teaching of Philippine Civics, Philippine History and Philippine Government, subjects that are precisely required of aliens who desire to embrace Philippine Citizenship for their indoctrination on matters concerning our history, government and nationalism, the said applicant is not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. The reason advanced that she was not able to complete her studies because she got married, is not only not satisfactory but betrays the sincerity of petitioner in embracing our citizenship.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for naturalization filed by Lee Cho alias Sem Lee before the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

After the reception of the evidence, the court on August 30, 1956 rendered decision finding petitioner qualified to be a Filipino citizen. However, on October 2, 1957, the government filed a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence which if presented may affect the qualification of petitioner, and finding the same well founded, the court entertained the motion. After the rehearing, where the newly discovered evidence was presented, the court again rendered decision reaffirming its holding that petitioner is qualified to become a Filipino citizen, whereupon the government interposed the present appeal.

Petitioner was born in Amoy, China, on September 22, 1907, of Chinese parents. He came to the Philippines sometime in February, 1921 and was given the corresponding alien certificate of residence and registration. He settled in the City of Cebu where he has continuously resided up to the present time. On December 8, 1929, he married one Sy Siok Bin with whom he had 13 children, all born in the City of Cebu. All these children had been issued the corresponding alien certificate of registration, with the exception of Lourdes Lee who married a naturalized Filipino citizen named Lim Kee Guan. With the exception of William Lee who is not of school age, Angelita who reached only grade five and Lourdes who stopped in third year high school, the other children are at present studying in private schools and colleges recognized by the government.

Petitioner studied from first grade to seventh grade in the Cebu Chinese High School, a private institution recognized by the government. He and his family profess the Roman Catholic faith. He speaks and writes English and the Cebu dialect. From 1921 to the outbreak of the last war, petitioner was engaged in corn business in the City of Cebu and from 1946 was engaged in lumber business, having been associated with some Filipinos. He invested P5,000.00 capital in the business and at present the actual worth of his share is about P20,000.00. Petitioner is receiving a monthly salary of P400.00 and realizes a profit share worth P10,000.00 every year. He has no tax liability to the government. In other respects, he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law.

Before an applicant may apply for Philippine citizenship, the law requires that he file a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen one year prior to the filing of his application unless he is exempt from complying with said requirement (Section 6, Naturalization Law). This section exempts one from filing a declaration of intention in two cases: (a) if he is born in the Philippines and has received primary and secondary education in any school recognized by the government; and (b) if he has continuously resided in the Philippines for a period of 30 years or more provided that he has given primary and secondary education to all his children either in a public school or in private schools recognized by the government.

In the instant case, petitioner has not filed any declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen because, as he claims, he has resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of more than 30 years and has given primary and secondary education to all his children in private schools recognized by the government. This claim is, however, disputed by the government who contends that petitioner has failed to comply with the requirement of the law regarding his duty to afford primary and secondary education to all his children because he failed to give such education to his daughters Angelita Lee and Lourdes Lee.

We find merit in this contention. In the first place, the evidence shows that Angelita Lee has only reached grade five and no explanation was given why no secondary education was afforded her which requires the teaching of Philippine Civics, Philippine History and Philippine Government, subjects that are precisely required of aliens who desire to embrace Philippine citizenship for their indoctrination on matters concerning our history, government and nationalism. The reason advanced that she was not able to complete her studies because she got married is not only not satisfactory but betrays the sincerity of petitioner in embracing our citizenship.

The case of Lourdes Lee is even more significant. It appears that she studied only as far as third year high school and then stopped allegedly because of poor health. But, by her own admission in open court, it was shown that in spite of her alleged sickness she continued her studies, not in the high school proper, but in a Chinese school which employs strictly Chinese curriculum where Philippine Civics, Philippine History and Philippine Government are not taught. This circumstance also betrays the sincerity of petitioner to become a Filipino citizen for if his motive were proper he should not have tolerated such deviation from the educational requirement of the law.

Considering that the provisions of the Naturalization Law should be strictly construed in order that its laudable and nationalistic purpose may be fully fulfilled, 1 we are persuaded to conclude that petitioner has failed to qualify to become a Filipino citizen and so his petition should be denied.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Ang Yee Koe Sengkee v. Republic of the Philippines, 90 Phil., 595.




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






December-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12629 December 9, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ARAQUEL

    106 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-12950 December 9, 1959 - BENJAMIN CELESTIAL v. SOUTHERN MINDANAO EXPERIMENTAL STATION

    106 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-13303 December 10, 1959 - ANG BUN PHEK alias KUN PUE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    106 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-11855 December 23, 1959 - LEE SUAN AY v. EMILIO GALANG

    106 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-12088 December 23, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO SUMAGUINA MACARANDANG

    106 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-12707 December 23, 1959 - DEMETRIO BUNAYOG v. ANACLETA TUNAS

    106 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. L-12764 December 23, 1959 - EMILIO CANO v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

    106 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-12948 December 23, 1959 - MARCELO VITAL v. PASTOR MAGTOTO

    106 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-12991 December 23, 1959 - F. F. HAMLIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    106 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-13017 December 23, 1959 - IN RE: TAK NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-13715 December 23, 1959 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

    106 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-11525 December 24, 1959 - IN RE: ANANDRAM VALIRAM DARGANI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-12207 December 24, 1959 - JUAN PALACIOS v. MARIA CATIMBANG PALACIOS

    106 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. L-13920 December 24, 1959 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP v. DANIEL M. M. SALCEDO

    106 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-13932 December 24, 1959 - JOSE V. DE LOS SANTOS v. NICASIO YATCO

    106 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-13272 December 26, 1959 - TRINIDAD OCAMPO-CAÑIZA v. FELIX MARTINEZ

    106 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-12408 December 28, 1959 - LEE CHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-13010 December 28, 1959 - JUANITO N. FERRER v. ALFONSO TABORA

    106 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-14022 December 28, 1959 - IN RE: YU KHENG CHIAU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14190 December 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRECITO BULALAKE

    106 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-9343 December 29, 1959 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VALENTIN R. LIM

    106 Phil 771

  • G.R. Nos. L-10994 & L-11012 December 29, 1959 - GOLAY-BUCHEL & CIE. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    106 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-11895 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: JESUS J. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 788

  • G.R. No. L-11968 December 29, 1959 - DOROTEO ONOFRE v. PASTOR P. REYES

    106 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-12231 December 29, 1959 - ANG LIONG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    106 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-12277 December 29, 1959 - BENITO ORIT v. BALRODGAN COMPANY

    106 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. L-12357 December 29, 1959 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. JOSE G. DE CASTRO

    106 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-12793 December 29, 1959 - MEDINA BROTHERS & COMPANY v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    106 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-13025 December 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO ROGADO

    106 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-13065 December 29, 1959 - LINO SALES v. JOSE SANTOS

    106 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. L-13067 December 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

    106 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-13080 December 29, 1959 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO.

    106 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-13126 December 29, 1959 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES v. SOTERO CABAHUG

    106 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-13273 December 29, 1959 - EDILIO L. BALUYOT v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-13354 December 29, 1959 - APOLINARIO DE LA CRUZ v. CITY FISCAL

    106 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-13361 December 29, 1959 - ROSARIO GREY VDA. DE ALBAR v. JOSEFA FABIE DE CARANGDANG

    106 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-13433 December 29, 1959 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. JUAN V. ALDEA

    106 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-13547 December 29, 1959 - JOAQUIN T. ORTEGA v. BAUANG FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION

    106 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-13926 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: FELISA F. HARRIS v. ROSE HARRIS

    106 Phil 873