Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > June 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19913 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: YU TI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19913. June 23, 1965.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP; YU TI alias VICENTE YUTE alias KANGA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Valeriano S. Kaamiño for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN IN APPROVED SCHOOLS; NO EXEMPTION BY CHILDREN’S BEING ABROAD OR OF MAJORITY AGE AT TIME PETITION FILED. — Under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law an applicant, to be exempt from filing declaration of intention, is required to have enrolled all his children, not only his minor children, in approved schools and the circumstances that the children were in China when they were of school age and that they had reached majority age before their father’s petition for naturalization was filed, do not dispense with the requirement.

2. ID.; ID.; NON-INCLUSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL IN PETITION FATAL. — Since Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires that the certificate of arrival be made part of the petition, which requirement is mandatory, petitioner’s failure in this regard is fatal. The fact that the Bureau of Immigration took it from him and issued in lieu thereof an immigrant certificate of residence is no excuse. It should not have been difficult for petitioner to have secured from the Collector of Customs a certified copy of the landing certificate allegedly issued to him and taken by the Bureau of Immigration, since the Court has no knowledge that such records have been destroyed during the last war, no certificate of such loss having been presented.

3. ID.; ID.; NON-DECLARATION OF ALL FORMER PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN PETITION NOT CURED BY EVIDENCE. — Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires the petition to state all former places of residence in order that, upon its publication, the public as well as the investigating authorities may have the needed opportunity to be informed thereof and voice their objection, if any, to the application. Since the omission of such facts deprives the public and government agencies of such opportunity, the defect cannot be cured by proving them later at the trial.

4. ID.; ID.; FINANCIAL CAPACITY DETERMINED AS OF TIME OF FILING PETITION. — The financial capacity of petitioner should be determined as of the time of the filing of his petition for naturalization.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Petitioner, Yu Ti alias Vicente Yute alias Kanga, was born in Amoy, China on October 9, 1907. Aboard the vessel S.S. "Thay Sing" he came to the Philippines — specifically, the Port of Manila — in September 1920. For two years he stayed in Manila; he moved to Cortez, Bohol and resided there for 11 years; he again transferred residence, to Ozamiz City, where he has stayed since 1933.

On August 30, 1960, he filed his application for admission to Philippine citizenship in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. The City Fiscal of Ozamiz City, on behalf of the Republic, filed on August 25, 1961, a motion to dismiss the petition. On September 7, 1961, petitioner filed his answer to the motion. Subsequently, the court denied said motion and proceeded to hear the application. After trial, on March 28, 1962, the court rendered judgment declaring petitioner entitled to naturalization.

The Republic has appealed.

Appellant argues that the filing of a declaration of intention, not fulfilled by petitioner, is necessary. The record shows that at the time the petition was filed petitioner was married to Tan Bee, then residing in Hongkong; that he had two children, namely Yu Ang Chio (born September 15, 1929) and Yu Tiong Ho (born October 9, 1935); that said children resided and are still residing in Chuanchiu, Amoy, China.

Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law exempts from the filing of declaration of intention an applicant who has resided continuously in the Philippines for at least 30 years, adding to it the requirement which establishes that the applicant 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 of nationality.

Petitioner contends that the requirement of having enrolled his children, as provided for in Section 6 aforementioned, does not apply to him because they had both attained majority or were beyond school age when the petition was filed. This Court has already ruled that under Section 6 of the statute an applicant, to be exempt from filing declaration of intention, is required to have enrolled all his children, not only his minor children, in approved schools and the circumstances that the children were in China when they were of school age and that they had reached majority age before their father’s petition for naturalization was filed, do not dispense with the requirement (Dy Chan Tiao v. Republic, 95 Phil 709).

The next point raised by appellant is petitioner’s failure to present his certificate of arrival as required by Section 7 of the law. It is admitted that, instead of the Certificate of arrival, petitioner adduced only his immigrant certificate of residence. Petitioner contends, however, that substantial compliance exists, stating that the Bureau of Immigration took his certificate of arrival and issued in lieu of it the aforesaid immigrant certificate of residence, as attested to by the notation on the latter: "issued in lieu of LCR No. 659-51762, Manila, Aug. 1, 1922." Since Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires that the certificate of arrival be made part of the petition, which requirement is mandatory, petitioner’s failure in this regard is fatal (Charm Chan v. Republic, 108 Phil., 882). It should not have been difficult for petitioner to have secured from the Collector of Customs a certified copy of the landing certificate allegedly issued to him and taken by the Bureau of Immigration, since we have no knowledge that such records have been destroyed during the last war, no certificate of such loss having been presented (Charm Chan v. Republic, supra).

Another defect, alleged in the petition is the failure to mention all of applicant’s former places of residence. During his testimony petitioner stated that, following his entry in 1920 into the Philippines, he resided in Manila for two years. The petition, however, states only one former place of residence, namely, Cortez, Bohol. It is argued by petitioner that the defect has been cured by the evidence. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires the petition to state all former places of residence in order that, upon its publication, the public as well as the investigating authorities may have the needed opportunity to be informed thereof and voice their objection, if any, to the application. Since the omission of such facts deprives the public and government agencies of such opportunity, the defect cannot be cured by proving them later at the trial. (Lo v. Republic, 111 Phil., 1036; Qua v. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964).

The financial capacity of petitioner should be determined as of the time of the filing of his petition for naturalization (Ong Tai v. Republic, L-19418, December 23, 1964). It is undisputed that petitioner’s income at the time of his application was only P200.00 a month or P2,400.00 a year (Tan., p. 11). Since he was then married and had two children, the same cannot be deemed lucrative. An annual income of P6,300.00 for a married man with one child has been considered not lucrative for purposes of naturalization (Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963).

With all the above defects fatal to petitioner’s application, there is no need to pass upon the other points raised by Appellant.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the petition denied, with costs against appellee. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17647 June 16, 1965 - HERMINIA GODUCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19201 June 16, 1965 - REV. FR. CASIMIRO LLADOC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17214 June 21, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO ALIPIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19836 June 21, 1965 - GO A. LENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16999 June 22, 1965 - IN RE: CHENG KIAT GIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19111 June 22, 1965 - IN RE: CHIU BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20379 June 22, 1965 - IN RE: JOSE BERMAS, SR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20489 June 22, 1965 - BOMBAY DEPT. STORE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-20716 June 22, 1965 - AGUSTIN DE AUSTRIA, ET AL v. HON. AGAPITO CONCHU

  • G.R. Nos. L-20847-9 June 22, 1965 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17189 June 22, 1965 - ANDRES CASTILLO v. JUAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17644 June 22, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO Y. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17650 June 22, 1965 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17913 June 22, 1965 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. HON. JOSE M. MOYA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18569 June 22, 1965 - PLACIDO ANTONIO, ET AL. v. PETRONILO JACINTO

  • G.R. No. L-20288 June 22, 1965 - JOSE CASARIA, ET AL v. RICARDO ROSALES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22236 June 22, 1965 - GSIS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17323 June 23, 1965 - CLAUDIO GABUTAS v. GUIDO D. CASTELLANES

  • G.R. No. L-19432 June 23, 1965 - COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO. INC. v. PLARIDEL LUMBER CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19913 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: YU TI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19914 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: TAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19915 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: TANG KONG KIAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19916 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: ALEXANDER LIM UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20021 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: SERGIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20136 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: JOSE A. SANTOS Y DIAZ v. ANATOLIO BUENCONSEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20431 June 23, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO LIBED, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20675 June 23, 1965 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TEODORO VELANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20843 June 23, 1965 - EDWARD J. NELL CO. v. RICARDO CUBACUB, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20987 June 23, 1965 - PHIL. LAND-AIR SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21470 June 23, 1965 - CONSUELO VDA. DE PRIETO v. PACIENCIA REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21856 June 23, 1965 - BENJAMIN BELISARIO v. MARCELO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16636 June 24, 1965 - MLA. SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. BATH CONSTRUCTlON & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19670 June 24, 1965 - PEDRO D. PAMINTUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-16641 June 24, 1965 - FE RECIDO, ET AL v. ALFONSO T. REFASO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19897 June 24, 1965 - JOAQUIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20824 & L-22218 June 24, 1965 - BERNARDINO GUERRERO & ASSOCIATES v. FRANCISCO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-19898 June 28, 1965 - IN RE: SEE YEK TEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20830 June 28, 1965 - HILARIO GANANCIAL, ET AL v. LEONARDO ATILLO

  • G.R. No. L-12351 June 29, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FELIX M. ICAMEN

  • G.R. No. L-18659 June 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTIPAS SAGARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19851 June 29, 1965 - YU BAN CHUAN v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20787-8 June 29, 1965 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-21071 June 29, 1965 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. DANIEL PEREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24406 June 29, 1965 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15938 June 30, 1965 - CARMELINO DADAY, ET AL v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-16078-79 June 30, 1965 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16236 June 30, 1965 - IRINEO S. BALTAZAR v. LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16767 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: TAN NGA KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16829 June 30, 1965 - OLEGARIO BRITO, ET AL v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-17287 June 30, 1965 - JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL v. EPIFANIO T. VILLEGAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17885 June 30, 1965 - GABRIEL P. PRIETO v. MEDEN ARROYO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18682 June 30, 1965 - NICOLAS DE LOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19157 June 30, 1965 - INDIAN COMMERCIAL CO. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19281 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: PEDRO SATILLON, ET AL v. PERFECTA MIRANDA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19348 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: SEE HO KIAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19380 June 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GASPAR ASILUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19636 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19780 June 30, 1965 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. CECILIO MONTEMAYOR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19844 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: FRANK YU TIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20145 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: ONG SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20208 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20462 June 30, 1965 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20499 June 30, 1965 - BALANGA POWER PLANT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20503 June 30, 1965 - PHIL. ASSO. OF GOV. RETIREES, INC. v. GSIS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23004 June 30, 1965 - MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23244 June 30, 1965 - CHAMBER OF AGRI. & NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE PHILS., ET AL v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-24671 June 30, 1965 - FELICULO ISRAEL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL