Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > July 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16459 July 26, 1966 IN RE: ANG PUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16459. July 26, 1966.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG PUE alias Vicente Tan TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANG PUE (alias VICENTE TAN), Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor H. C. Fule for Oppositor-Appellant.

Baranda & Dominado and Uy and Artiaga for Petitioner-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANT’S CHILDREN BE ENROLLED IN SCHOOL IS MANDATORY. — Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which requires an applicant for naturalization to enroll his minor children of school age many of the public or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of his residence, is mandatory, so that failure to comply with it constitutes a valid ground for denying the petition (Chan v. Republic, 90 Phil., 415; Tan v. Republic, 92 Phil. 915, 49 Off. Gaz., 1409). The fact that the children of the applicant could not be brought to the Philippines due to the civil war in China or to the strictness of Philippine Immigration Laws does not constitute a valid excuse for non-compliance with this requirement (Lian Chua v. Republic, 48 Off. Gaz., 1780; Ng Sin v. Republic, G. R. No. L-7590, September 29, 1955; Sy Kiap v. Republic, 91 Phil., 784; 48 Off. Gaz., 3362).

2. ID.; RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT; EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT CONTINUOUSLY RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES; CASE AT BAR. — The petition for naturalization itself shows that one of applicant’s sons was born on October 2, 1941 at Chingkang, China, and that his other son was born September 15, 1945 at the same place. If this is true, it is doubtful that appellee had truly resided in the Philippines continuously since his arrival in December 1933.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Appeal taken by the Republic of the Philippines from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Civil Case No. 77 admitting Ang Pue, alias Vicente Tan, to Philippine citizenship, contending that the latter had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 2, paragraph 6, of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.

On September 24, 1958, appellee filed his petition for naturalization alleging, among other things, that he was born on September 21, 1920 in Chingkang, China, a citizen of Nationalist China, and arrived in the Philippines on December 1933 on board the vessel "An King" ; that he had lived here ever since, and particularly in the City of Iloilo for at least one year immediately preceding the date of the petition; that he was married to "Koo" Siok Tuan, who was a resident of 344 Lockhart Road, Hongkong, together with their children, Pedro Ang Tan (alias — Tan Teik Chay), age 17, and Eduardo Ang Tan (alias — Tan Teik Kong), age 13, all born in Chingkang, China; that his two sons never had an opportunity to stay in the Philippines as he came to this country alone.

After due publication of the petition and proper hearing where the City Fiscal of Iloilo, in representation of the Solicitor General, filed an opposition thereto, the court rendered the appealed judgment.

Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 provides that an applicant for naturalization must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools, or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition. We have construed this provision to be mandatory so that failure to comply with it constitutes a valid ground for denying the petition (Chan v. Republic, 90 Phil., 415; Tan v. Republic, 92 Phil., 915; 49 Off. Gaz., p. 1409). We have further held that the fact that the children of the applicant could not be brought to the Philippines due to the civil war in China or to the strictness of Philippine Immigration Laws do not constitute valid excuses for non-compliance with this requirement (Lian Chua v. Republic, 48 Off. Gaz., p. 1780; Ng Sin v. Republic, G. R. No. L-7590, September 29, 1955; Sy Kiap v. Republic 91 Phil., 784; 48 Off. Gaz., p. 3362)

Moreover, the petition for naturalization itself shows that applicant’s son named Pedro Ang Tan was born on October 2, 1941 at Chingkang, China, and that his other son Eduardo was born on September 15, 1945 at the same place. If this is true, it is very doubtful, to say the least, that appellee had truly resided in the Philippines continuously since his arrival in the month of December 1933.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, with the result that appellee’s application for naturalization is dismissed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.




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






July-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21382 July 2, 1966 JOSE ARENAJO v. JULIAN E. LUSTRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20099 July 7, 1966 PARMANAND SHEWARAM v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22173 July 7, 1966 JUAN JUSTO v. HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20887 July 8, 1966 JUAN ONG v. ISABELO FONACIER

  • G.R. No. L-22394 July 9, 1966 IN RE: ALBINO CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19824-26 July 9, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18872 July 15, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO ARANETA v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-20117 July 15, 1966 RESTITUTO TUANDA v. SIMPLICIO DIONALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21547 July 15, 1966 DEL PILAR TRANSIT, INC. v. JOSE M. SILVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22271 July 26, 1966 JOSE ABANILLA, ET AL. v. REINERIO TICAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26275 July 26, 1966 BARTOLOME BARNIDO, ET AL. v. MARIANO BALANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21638 July 26, 1966 ONG SIU, ET AL. v. ANTONIO P. PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22713 July 26, 1966 TERESITA M. CONSUL v. JESUS L. CONSUL

  • G.R. No. L-16459 July 26, 1966 IN RE: ANG PUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19671 July 26, 1966 PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ v. VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20468 July 26, 1966 GENERAL OFFSET PRESS, INC. v. APOLONIA ANATALIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20811 July 26, 1966 IN RE: JULIO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20927 July 26, 1966 IN RE: ROSALINA E. CRUZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21485 July 26, 1966 JUSTINO L. DAVID v. ANGEL DANCEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21570 July 26, 1966 LIMPAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21889 July 26, 1966 TEODORA V. PALISOC v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-16852 July 26, 1966 PILAR L. DE VALENZUELA v. TITO M. DUPAYA

  • G.R. No. L-18033 July 26, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACARIO CASALME

  • G.R. No. L-19238 July 26, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARINCHO CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19643 July 26, 1966 A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. FROILAN JAPA

  • G.R. No. L-25887 July 26, 1966 BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., ET AL. v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966 LA MALLORCA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19344 July 27, 1966 AGATON BULAONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25490 July 27, 1966 SILVESTRE DOMINGO v. FERNANDO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-25716 July 28, 1966 FERNANDO LOPEZ v. GERARDO ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20038 July 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN ABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22440 July 30, 1966 FLORANTE ILETO, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18349 July 30, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF JOSE PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-18752 July 30, 1966 CATALINA MENDOZA, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES C. MELLA

  • G.R. No. L-19110 July 30, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17296 July 30, 1966 PANTALEON S. SARMENTA v. MARIO S. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17919 July 30, 1966 IN RE: GO IM TY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19451 July 30, 1966 IN RE: WADHU PRIBHDAS SHAHANI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20906 July 30, 1966 DOMINGA TORRES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20434 July 30, 1966 PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20996 July 30, 1966 ALEJO ABES, ET AL. v. TOMAS RODIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21156 and L-21187 July 30, 1966 LOURDES R. OSMEÑA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21813 July 30, 1966 AMPARO G. PEREZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22033 July 30, 1966 MARIA FLOR V. DIRIGE v. VICTORIANO BIRANYA

  • G.R. No. 19829 July 30, 1966 IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CO KENG

  • G.R. No. L-19779 July 30, 1966 RIZAL LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. RIZAL CEMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21642 July 30, 1966 SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CANDELARIA D. DAVAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25853 July 30, 1966 PABLO FESTEJO v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26166 July 30, 1966 ROQUE JAVELLANA v. JOSE QUERUBIN, ET AL.