Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > December 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3863 December 27, 1951 - ANG YEEKOE SENGKEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

090 Phil 594:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-3863. December 27, 1951.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG YEE KOE SENGKEE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANG YEEKOE SENGKEE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Emigdio Tanjuatco, for petitioner and appellee.

Assistant Solicitor General Inocencio Rosal and Solicitor Florencio Villamor, for oppositor and Appellant.

SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; APPLICANT MUST ENROLL ALL HIS MINOR CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE; REASON FOR THE REQUIREMENT. — The requirement of the Revised Naturalization Law about an applicant for naturalization enrolling all his minor children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and civics are taught, is important for the reason that upon naturalization of the father, the children ipso facto acquire the privilege of Philippine citizenship. It is the policy of the Philippine government to make prospective citizens who are children of applicants for naturalization, learn and imbibe the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos as well as their democratic form of government.

2. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF CHILDREN FROM THE PHILIPPINES, NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. — The fact that all of the children of school age of an applicant are in China or otherwise outside of the Philippines is not valid excuse or reason for non-Compliances with this requirement.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


The Republic of the Philippines represented by the Solicitor- General is appealing from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, granting the application of petitioner-appellee Ang Yee Koe Sengkee for naturalization. The main contention of the Solicitor- General in support of his appeal is that the applicant-appellee is not entitled to naturalization for the reason that contrary to the requirement of the Revised Naturalization Law contained in Section 2, paragraph 6 thereof, he has not enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of the Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum.

The facts in the present case are not controverted. The applicant Ang Yee Koe Sengkee, a Chinese citizen, was born in China in the year 1891. He came to the Philippines in 1902 and since then has resided continuously here, except for brief visits to China in 1906, 1915, 1926, 1929, 1936, and 1947. During his stay in China in 1926 he married Tan Siock Luan and the two returned to the Philippines that same year. In 1929 the couple went to China and there, their eldest child Ang Kian Seng, now 21 years old, was born. The following year the second child Ang Kian Chiong, now 19 years of age, was born also in China. The couple returned to the Philippines in 1930. In the year 1933, the third child Ang Kiang To, was born in Manila. In 1937 the applicant’s wife together with their three children went to live in China where they have been residing up to the present time. It seems that the last child Ang Kian Kock, now 15 years old, was born in China.

The applicant’s children, except Ang Kian Seng, the eldest, who is said to have attended the first grade at the Anglo-Chinese School in Manila, have not attended any school, public or private, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught. His excuse for not complying with this requirement of the Revised Naturalization Law is that when his three minor children left the Islands in 1937, they were not yet of school age, and that now, because of the civil war in China and the unsettled conditions obtaining there, it was difficult if not impossible to bring them here. This reason or excuse given by the applicant was considered satisfactory and accepted by the trial court and so the application for naturalization was granted.

We have had occasion to rule in several cases of naturalization that the requirement of the Revised Naturalization Law about an applicant for naturalization enrolling all his minor children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and civics are taught, is important for the reason that upon naturalization of the father, the children ipso facto acquire the privilege of Philippine citizenship. It is the policy of the Philippine Government to have prospective citizens, of applicants for naturalization, learn and imbibe the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos as well as their democratic form of government. The fact that all of the children of school age of the applicant are in China or otherwise outside of the Philippines is no valid excuse or reason for non-compliance with this requirement. 1

As regards the claim that because of the unsettled conditions and the civil war in China, the applicant found it difficult if not impossible to bring his children to the Philippines in order to enroll them in the public or private schools here, this Court thru Mr. Justice Pablo said in the case of "En el asunto de la peticion de naturalizacion de Florentino Uy Boco. Florentino Uy Boco, recurrente y apelado, contra Republica de Filipinas, opositora y apelante," 47 O. G. 3442, that for us to hold that the last world war would dispense with compliance with the requirement of the Naturalization Law, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

Besides, as observed by the Solicitor-General, the applicant, despite the alleged chaotic conditions in China, was able to go there in 1947 and return to this country, and he could then have brought his family back with him.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the applicant has not complied with at least one important requirement of the Naturalization Law, and that therefore he is not entitled to naturalization. We deem it unnecessary to discuss and pass upon the other errors assigned by the Solicitor-General. With reversal of the decision appealed from, the petition for naturalization is hereby denied, with costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Tuason and Jugo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Hao Lian Chu alias Hao Pusoy, v. Republic of the Philippines, 87 Phil., 668; Lim Lian Hong alias Ignacio Lim Lian Hong v. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-3575, December 26, 1950; and Tan Hi v. Republic of the Philippines, 88 Phil., 117.




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-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5153 December 10, 1951 - GLICERIO MANGOMA v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    090 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-2317 December 12, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO GOROSPE

    090 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-4414 December 12, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. TEODORO PINUELA

    090 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-3925 December 14, 1951 - JOSE TAN v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    090 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. L-2990 December 17, 1951 - OSCAR M. ESPUELAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    090 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. L-3885 December 17, 1951 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. LEE TAY, ET AL.

    090 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-4169 December 17, 951

    REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS v. PATRICIO C. CENIZA

    090 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. L-4276 December 17, 1951 - SOLEDAD OLVIDO, ET AL. v. MAMERTO FERRARIS, ET AL.

    090 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-4187 December 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CORPES, ET AL.

    090 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-3587 December 21, 1951 - TIONG KING v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    090 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. L-3846 December 21, 1951 - CARLOS M. SISON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    090 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. L-3935 December 21, 1951 - TEOFILO ABETO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    090 Phil 581

  • G.R. Nos. L-2963-4 December 27, 1951 - HERMOGENES FERNANDO v. GERMAN CRISOSTOMO, ET AL.

    090 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3616 December 27, 1951 - ATANACIA MALLARI v. JUAN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    090 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-3863 December 27, 1951 - ANG YEEKOE SENGKEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    090 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-4791 December 27, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    090 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-3624 December 28, 1951 - TAN SENG HOO v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    090 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-3934 December 28, 1951 - MARIA C. ARVISU v. MATIAS E. VERGARA, ET AL.

    090 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4013 December 28, 1951 - JAMES MCI. HENDERSON v. JOSE GARRIDO, ET AL.

    090 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-4159 December 28, 1951 - EFREN V. MENDOZA v. AGUSTIN MONTESA, ET AL.

    090 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-4224 December 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICISIMO CANOY, ET AL.

    090 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-4461 December 28, 1951 - FRANCISCA QUIZAN v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    090 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-3569 December 29, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO PEÑA

    090 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. L-4140 & L-4141 December 29, 1951 - BERNARDO S. DUÑGAO, ET AL. v. ANGEL ROQUE, ET AL.

    090 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-4337 December 29, 1951 - DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    090 Phil 665