Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20604. May 29, 1970.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EDUARDO TAN (SEE LIN) TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. EDUARDO TAN (SEE LIN), Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Rosario Alvarez for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, First Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Celso P. Ylagan for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; DISQUALIFICATION; FAILURE TO ENROLL CHILD OF SCHOOL AGE TO SCHOOLS RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. — Failure of applicant to send his only son to a Philippine school is a violation of our laws requiring him to enroll his children of school age in schools recognized by the Government of the Philippines and open to all races or nationalities where Philippine History, Government and Civics are taught and form part of the school curriculum. The fact that the child had been living in Hongkong did not excuse the father from complying with our law, for it is his duty to make every effort possible to bring him to the Philippines so that he could be given the required education.

2. ID.; ID.; USE OF ALIAS. — The unauthorized use of aliases by an applicant for naturalization is confusing and might cause substantial prejudice to the right of the Government to investigate his background.

3. ID.; HEARING OF PETITION TO TAKE OATH; ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED. — At the hearing of a petition for authority to take the oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen, the State is not precluded from objecting thereto upon any legal ground that would show fraud, or error committed in the previous decision granting the petition for naturalization.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


On November 6, 1959 petitioner Eduardo Tan @ See Lin filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for naturalization to which was attached the joint affidavit of his two character witnesses.

After publication of the petition in the Voz de Manila, a newspaper of general circulation in said City, the hearing was held on September 21, 1960, with Solicitor Pedro Ocampo appearing on behalf of the State. On September 21, 1960 the trial court rendered its decision granting the petition for naturalization. On September 8, 1962 petitioner filed with the trial court a petition that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen on the 28th of the same month. At the hearing thereof held on that date, at which, according to the appealed order, "the office of the Solicitor General was duly notified of this petition and has signified its conformity", the trial court found that petitioner had complied with the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, and was allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen. On the same date, however, upon motion of Solicitor Ylagan, who had appeared for the State at the hearing of the motion for authority to take the oath of allegiance, the court deferred the oath taking of petitioner for thirty days, and on October 17 of the same year the office of the Solicitor General filed with the court the following manifestation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"COMES NOW the Republic of the Philippines, by undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully makes the following manifestation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That this proceedings preparatory to oath taking was finished last September 28, 1962;

2. That, during the hearing, the undersigned, Solicitor in charge, in his cross-examination, raised the question that petitioner failed to enroll his minor child of school age in any of the public or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education (Sec. 2, par. 6, Revised Naturalization Law), to which counsel for petitioner objected; and this Honorable Court, in ruling on the matter, sustained the objection;

3. That, in its order dated September 28, 1962, the Court has stated in the dispositive portion thereof: ‘ . . . it appearing that the Solicitor General has no objection to the same (petition to take oath), the Court finds that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, and he is hereby allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen . . .’;

4. That, in deference to this Court, it must be stated that such statement is inaccurate, the fact being that in his cross-examination the Solicitor in charge raised the issue of petitioner’s failure to comply with Sec. 2, paragraph 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, with the view to invoking such non-compliance by petitioner as ground, among others, for appeal;

5. That, in another order dated September 28, 1962, the Court said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘ORDER

Upon Motion of Solicitor Celso Ylagan, let the oathtaking of the herein petitioner be deferred thirty (30) days from today.’

6. That, again, there is some inaccuracy in the above-quoted order of the Court, the fact being that it was the Court, itself that, motu proprio, suggested that the oathtaking be deferred 30 days, upon hearing undersigned Solicitor in charge manifest that he would study the case and the evidence for the purpose of filing the Government’s opposition.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this manifestation be incorporated in, and made part of, the records of this case."cralaw virtua1aw library

After the filing of the manifestation quoted above, the Government perfected its appeal from the trial court’s order of September 28, 1962 allowing petitioner to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen. In the brief submitted on its behalf, the following questions are raised:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I


THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GRANTING PETITIONER OATHTAKING, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE REGLEMENTARY 2-YEAR PROBATION PERIOD, PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT 530, SAID PETITIONER HAVING FAILED TO SEND HIS ONLY CHILD TO A PHILIPPINE SCHOOL.

II


THE COURT A QUO ERRED, LIKEWISE, IN ALLOWING OATHTAKING TO PETITIONER, CONSIDERING HIS UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ALIASES."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to the record, petitioner had an only child named See Ko Piao born in Amoy, China in May 1942. This son lived in Hongkong with his mother, petitioner’s wife, named Ng Hui Chu, and had never been brought to the Philippines. Thus, it is beyond question that petitioner had failed to send his only son to a Philippine school, in violation of our laws requiring him to enroll his children of school age in schools recognized by the Government of the Philippines and open to all races or nationalities and where Philippine History, Government and Civics are taught and form part of the school curriculum. The fact that Ko Piao had been living in Hongkong did not excuse his father from complying with our law, for it was his duty to make every effort possible to bring him to the Philippines so that he could be given the required education (Dy Chuan Tiao v. Republic, G.R. No. L-6430, August 31, 1954; Tan Hoi v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15266, September 30, 1960; Ko Sengkee v. Republic etc., G.R. No. L-3863, December 27, 1951; Tan Hi v. Republic, etc., G.R. L-3354, January 25, 1951).

In connection with the second assignment of error, the record likewise shows that petitioner’s name given in his petition for naturalization is EDUARDO TAN (See Lin). This notwithstanding, he admitted during the hearing that he has an alias, namely, TAN BON HUA. In the notice published in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in connection with his petition for naturalization, his name was stated as SEE LIN @ EDUARDO TAN BON HUA and EDUARDO SEE TAN. In Exhibits AA, BB, CC, DD, EE and others, his only name appears as See Lin, while in his residence certificate, Exhibit FF, and Land Registration Commission clearance Exhibit PP, his name appears as SEE LIN @ TAN BON HUA.

No argument need be adduced to show that the unauthorized use of the foregoing names by petitioner was, to say the least, confusing and might have caused substantial prejudice to the right of the Government to investigate his background.

Petitioner claims that the issues raised by the Government in this appeal are barred, the decision of the trial court granting petitioner’s petition for naturalization having become executory. This is untenable. We have repeatedly held that at the hearing of a petition for authority to take the oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen, the State is not precluded from objecting thereto upon any legal ground that would show fraud, or error committed in the previous decision granting the petition for naturalization.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is reversed and set aside, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., concurs in the result.

Castro, J., is on official leave.




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






May-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO