Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > July 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25814 July 30, 1969 - CEZAR LUCHAYCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25814. July 30, 1969.]

PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, CEZAR LUCHAYCO, also known as CESAR LU, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Cirilo Y. Ganzon for Petitioner-Appellee.

The Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Pedro A. Ramirez for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; NATURALIZATION, EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING A DECLARATION OF INTENTION; PROOF NECESSARY. — In order that an applicant for Philippine citizenship may be exempt from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention, there must be a showing that he received his primary and secondary education in public schools or schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF EXEMPTION DEFICIENT IN CASE AT BAR. — Where petitioner, testifying as a witness at the hearing of the case, declared that: (1) he obtained his primary education in Iloilo Chinese Commercial High School which according to him, was open also to Filipino students, adding that during the time he was a student at such school there were Filipino students who were his classmates with whom he associated "in class activities, in games, in social activities, excursions, and others" and (2) he received his intermediate and secondary education at the Sun Yat Sen High School whose principal was at the time Kuo Ching Yan, affirming once more that such a school was open to all students regardless of nationality, religion or race including Filipinos, several of whom were his classmates and with whom he likewise associated in the activities mentioned above, and there was no other testimony regarding his compliance with the statutory requirement to justify his exemption from filing a declaration of intention, there is a deficiency in proof fatal in its effects. It has been decided that the petitioner’s testimony, unsupported by other competent evidence is inadequate. The burden is on him to present such competent evidence, he being the claimant of the exemption, and since he failed to do so, he cannot be entitled to the exemption sought.

3. ID.; ID.; FULL AND STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENT OF LAW NECESSARY BEFORE CITIZENSHIP CAN BE GRANTED. — The grant of citizenship is a highly regarded privilege and there must be a full and strict compliance with the requirements of the law before its benefits can be enjoyed.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The grant of citizenship to Cezar Luchayco is challenged by the Republic of the Philippines in this appeal from a lower court decision of August 9, 1965, The main ground for opposition is the lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, there being a failure to file a declaration of intention on the part of the petitioner, acting on the belief that he was exempt from such a requirement. Such is not the case however, according to the Republic, as there was no showing that he did receive his primary and secondary education in public schools or schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. 1 If such view were to prevail, then a reversal of the lower court decision is called for.

At the hearing of this case, the petitioner, testifying as a witness, declared that he obtained his primary education in Iloilo Chinese Commercial High School which, according to him, was open also to Filipino students. 2 He added that during the time he was a student at such school there were Filipino students who were his classmates with whom he associated "in class activities, in games, in social activities, excursions, and others." 3 He received his intermediate and secondary education at the Sun Yat Sen High School, whose principal was at the time Kuo Ching Yuan. 4 Again, he did affirm that such a school was open to all students regardless of nationality, religion or race including Filipinos, several of whom were his classmates and with whom he likewise associated in the activities mentioned above. 5

There was no other testimony regarding his compliance with the statutory requirement to justify his exemption from filing a declaration of intention. 6 There was then a deficiency in proof, fatal in its effects. So it was categorically held in Lim v. Republic. 7 Thus: "As stated, the Cebu Chinese High School where applicant Felix Lim completed his primary education is recognized by the Government. No evidence, however, aside from applicant’s own testimony, was presented to show that said school is not limited to a particular race or nationality. To our mind, his testimony, unsupported by other competent evidence, is inadequate. The burden is on him to present such competent evidence, he being the claimant of the exemption, and since he failed to do so, he cannot be entitled to the exemption sought. And inasmuch as he filed no declaration of intention, his petition for naturalization must be denied."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above ruling is foreshadowed by what was held by us in Lee v. Republic, 8 where we stressed the following: "Considering that Section 6 of the Naturalization Law expressly requires that to be exempt from filing declarations of intention Philippine-born applicants must, inter alia, have received both primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality; that there is no evidence that the Manila Chinese School (where petitioner received primary education) was not limited to any race or nationality, but, on the contrary, its name clearly imported that it was limited to Chinese students . . .; and considering that the burden lies on applicant to satisfactorily show that all schools attended by him are not limited to students of a particular nationality, but are regularly attended by a sizeable number of Filipino students from whom applicant could have imbibed Filipino customs and traditions, we agree that petitioner should have filed in due time his declaration of intention, and not having done so, his application was erroneously granted." An excerpt from Ng v. Republic 9 is likewise relevant: "Besides, it is now well settled that enrollment in Chinese (or other foreign) school raises the inference that the applicant is subject to a disqualification, namely, failure to evince ‘a sincere desire to embrace our customs, traditions and ideals.’"

The case against the grant of citizenship in the light of the foregoing seems to be particularly impressive. As far back as 1950, there has been a rejection of the liberal construction of the above provision of the Naturalization Law. 10 It is easy to understand why. As stated by us in Guy Co Chia v. Republic: 11 "This educational requirement is necessary not only to test the sincerity of purpose of petitioner but to give him the proper perspective regarding the ideals and principles of the citizenship he seeks to embrace."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would be to overturn then an impressive array of decisions previously noted if we were to uphold the lower court. We are not disposed to do so, as we adhere to the basic concept that the grant of citizenship being a highly regarded privilege, there must be a full and strict compliance with the requirements of the law before its benefits can be enjoyed. Under that fundamental postulate and with the lack of evidence to substantiate his claim for exemption from filing a declaration of intention, the petition in this case ought not to have been granted by the lower court. With the view we take of this particular jurisdictional objection, there is no need to inquire into the other grounds of opposition.

WHEREFORE, the decision of August 9, 1965 is reversed. With costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.

Teehankee, J., in the result.

Endnotes:



1. The jurisdiction of the lower court is likewise assailed in this appeal on the ground that the petitioner has not made a full disclosure in his petition for naturalization of all the names by which he is known.

2. T.s.n., pp. 44-45.

3. Ibid, p. 45.

4. Ibid, pp. 46-47.

5. Ibid, pp. 47-48.

6. According to the Revised Naturalization Law: "Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, . . ., may in be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act." Commonwealth Act No. 473 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535, Section 6 (1940).

7. 16 SCRA 12 (1966).

8. L-20151, March 31, 1965. The doctrine was followed in Uy Chin Hong v. Republic, 17 SCRA 220 (1966). Cf. Sia v. Republic, L-20290, August 31, 1965.

9. 25 SCRA 574 (1968).

10. Uy Boco v. Republic, 85 Phil. 320 (1950). Cf. De la Cruz v. Republic, 92 Phil. 714 (1953).

11. 10 SCRA 745 (1964).




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-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27758 July 14, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO NABUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20194 July 17, 1969 - IN RE: JAMES UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24764 July 17, 1969 - EUFROSINO ROM v. CLEMENTE COBADORA

  • G.R. No. L-28355 July 17, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO LUMANTAS

  • G.R. No. L-29839 July 17, 1969 - TOMAS SABANGAN v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29369 July 24, 1969 - CESAR R. BORROMEO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26337 July 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO MABAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28884 July 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLY SIA

  • G.R. No. L-20354 July 28, 1969 - GERARDO SAMSON, JR. v. FELIPE TARROZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21024 July 28, 1969 - CENON MATEO v. FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23159 July 28, 1969 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-25137 July 28, 1969 - J. P. JUAN & SONS, INC. v. LIANGA INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25882 July 28, 1969 - CESAR T. ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27569 July 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PASCUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27792 July 28, 1969 - ANTONIO NARITO v. JOSE CARRIDO

  • G.R. No. L-29051 July 28, 1969 - BINGING HO v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BONGAO, SULU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30734 July 28, 1969 - JUAN DIOSAMITO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN BALANQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22764 July 28, 1969 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22702 July 28, 1969 - VICENTE A. GOMEZ v. CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-30364 July 28, 1969 - ANGEL C. BAKING, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-25299 July 29, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22986 July 29, 1969 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25274 July 29, 1969 - NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. v. LOUISE MATEU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27348 July 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL MENDEZ, ET, AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30570 July 29, 1969 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29002 July 30, 1969 - EDUARDO VIDAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28095 July 30, 1969 - ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PERFECTO BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27117 July 30, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28022 July 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LABA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25814 July 30, 1969 - CEZAR LUCHAYCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26860 July 30, 1969 - ALBERTA B. CABRAL, ET AL. v. TEODORA EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28214 July 30, 1969 - NATIVIDAD V. A. JARODA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19753 July 30, 1969 - ANGELA LAZATIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20723 July 30, 1969 - WASHINGTON P. PONCE v. EUGENIO E. VAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21887 July 30, 1969 - IN RE: TEOTIMO T. TOMADA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO T. TOMADA

  • G.R. No. L-23977 July 30, 1969 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22607 July 30, 1969 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LEE WAI LAM

  • G.R. No. L-23683 July 30, 1969 - JUAN APURILLO v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26737 July 31, 1969 - LAURA CORPUS, ET AL. v. FELARDO PAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27790 July 31, 1969 - SOFRONIO ALCANTARA v. MARCELO VALDEHUEZA

  • G.R. No. L-26584 July 31, 1969 - MARA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26741 July 31, 1969 - IN RE: TESSIE ASTERO v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF DAGUPAN CITY

  • G.R. Nos. L-27948 & L-28001-11 July 31, 1969 - LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, ET AL. v. ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29278 July 31, 1969 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ADMIN. v. LASAM FARMERS’ COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOC., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30027 July 31, 1969 - JUSTINA C. SANTOS v. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23041 July 31, 1969 - E. RODRIGUEZ, INC. v. COLLECTOR INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24458-64 July 31, 1966

    AMANDO ALGABRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24749 July 31, 1969 - GEORGE W. FLEISCHER, ET AL. v. PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25504 July 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO F. NER