Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > December 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20602 December 24, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20602. December 24, 1965.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. ANDRES REYES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal BENITO MACROHON, as Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Rizal, and TAN CHIONG, Respondents.

Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Benjamin S. Abalos for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT; CERTIORARI WHEN CONSIDERED ADEQUATE REMEDY. — Where, as in the present case, the matters brought to the attention of the Court allegedly justifying a denial, instead of approval, of the application for naturalization involve facts contained in the disputed decision of the power court and admitted by the parties in their pleadings, certiorari may be considered adequate for the purpose of determining the correctness or incorrectness of said decision.

2. ID.; EXEMPTION FROM THE FILING OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION. — Applicant claims exemption from filing a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen for the reason that he had been continuously a resident of the Philippines for more than 30 years. For this exemption to be availed of, however, it is necessary for applicant to show that all of his children of school age received their primary and secondary education in government-recognized schools where Philippine history, civics and government are part of the curriculum. This, applicant failed to do.

3. ID.; CHARACTER WITNESSES, WHO ARE NOT CREDIBLE WITNESSES. — While the character witnesses presented by the applicant may be reliable, responsible individuals, yet, considering that the applicant invoked his alleged residence for more than 30 years, in order to qualify as "insurers of the latter’s conduct and behavior", it is necessary that said witnesses must have known him for the same number of years. Since petitioner came to the Philippines in 1924 and his witnesses came to know him only in 1947, they cannot be considered as "credible witnesses" within the contemplation of the Revised Naturalization Law.

4. ID.; FAILURE TO STATE ALL PLACES OF RESIDENCE. — The failure of petitioner to state all his places of residence is fatal to his petition for naturalization.

5. ID.; FAILURE TO DISCLOSE OTHER NAMES. — Where the applicant was known by another name and the same was not disclosed in the published petition, the application for naturalization must be denied.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


After due publication and hearing of the application for naturalization filed by Tan Chiong, the Court of First Instance of Rizal (in Civil Case No. 461), finding him to possess all of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for admission to Philippine citizenship, granted the said application in a decision rendered on September 30, 1960. The Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal. However, before the appeal could be perfected, the same was withdrawn by the first Assistant Solicitor General.

On October 29, 1962, and before the applicant could take the necessary oath as a Filipino citizen, the Solicitor General filed a motion to vacate the decision in the case and an opposition to the oath-taking of the former, on the ground among others, that the petition filed therein was void for failure to state the previous places of residence of petitioner; that he (petitioner) failed to file a declaration of intention; he showed lack of sincere desire to embrace the customs and traditions of the Filipinos by not bringing his family to the Philippines; he used an alias without judicial authority; and the character witnesses who testified during the hearing of the application were not credible persons within the concept of the law. This motion having been denied by the court in its order of December 7, 1962, and reception of applicant-petitioner’s evidence, preparatory to his oath-taking, having been scheduled, the Government filed the present petition for certiorari, claiming that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the application for naturalization and issuing the aforementioned order of December 7, 1962.

In his answer, respondent-applicant contests the propriety of this certiorari proceeding, for the reason that no motion for reconsideration was first filed in the lower court, and that this remedy cannot be availed of to correct the error of judgment allegedly committed by the lower court. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the issues raised by the oppositor Republic of the Philippines involve findings of fact which may be inquired into by this Tribunal.

The petitioner-oppositor’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration in the lower court before instituting this proceeding was explained to be demanded by the urgency of the need for a restraining order to prevent the enforcement of the lower court’s order of December 7, 1962, which might be utilized to stall the deportation of the applicant’s two minor children, as overstaying visitors, which was then already ordered by the Commissioner of Immigration. In view of this circumstance and considering the nature of the present case, the filing of the instant petition may be treated to have been made in substantial compliance with the Rules.

On the alleged impropriety of the present certiorari proceeding, it may be stated that, while it is true that in an ordinary judicial contest, appeal would be the appropriate remedy to review the correctness of a decision of the lower court, a naturalization proceeding is so infused with public interest that it has been differently categorized and given special treatment. Thus, unlike in ordinary judicial contest, the granting of a petition for naturalization does not preclude the reopening of that case and giving the government another opportunity to present new evidence. 1 A decision or order granting citizenship will not even constitute res judicata to any matter or reason supporting a subsequent judgment cancelling the certification of naturalization already granted, on the ground that it had been illegally or fraudulently procured. 2 For the same reason, issues even if not raised in the lower court may be entertained on appeal. 3 As the matters brought to the attention of this Court allegedly justifying a denial, instead of approval of, the application of Tan Chiong involve facts contained in the disputed decision of the lower court and admitted by the parties in their pleadings, the present proceeding may be considered adequate for the purpose of determining the correctness or incorrectness of said decision, in the light of the law and extant jurisprudence.

In the application dated March 21, 1959, filed by Tan Chiong, it was stated, inter alia, that he is a citizen of Nationalist China, born on November 25, 1911, having emigrated to and arrived in the Philippines in October, 1924 aboard the vessel "SS ANKING" ; he is a merchant (business executive) with an average annual income of P52,000.00; married to Gan Luan, who was then residing in Hongkong with their six children, namely, Tan Chun Yu, born on February 10, 1932; Tan Chun Kiat — May 5, 1934; Tan Chun Sin — March 12, 1936; Tan Puy Keng — December 8, 1942; Tan Puy Tin — November 25, 1944; and Tan Chun Ho — December 24, 1945; he speaks and writes English and Tagalog; has resided in the Philippines for about 35 years, specifically in the municipality of San Juan province of Rizal since 1947; he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his stay in this country. In short, he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for admission to Philippine citizenship. These allegations were found substantiated by the lower court, and the petition was granted.

As pointed out by the oppositor Republic of the Philippines, however, the petition mentioned merely that petitioner-applicant was residing at No. 2 San Luis, San Juan, Rizal, without specifying the previous places of his residence, considering that he had been in this country allegedly since 1924, and he had been a resident of San Juan only in 1947. The omission to state the places of his residence from 1924 to 1947 is fatal to the petition. 4

The applicant also admits that he did not file a declaration of intention for the reason that, as a resident of this country for more than 30 years, he is exempted from this requirement of the law. 5 For this exemption to be availed of, however, it is necessary for applicant to show that all of his children of school age had received their primary and secondary education in government-recognized schools where Philippine history, civics and government are part of the curriculum. 6

It is not denied that of herein applicant’s six children, only two — Tan Puy Tin and Tan Chun Ho — were brought to the Philippines in 1960 (when they were 16 and 15 years of age, respectively) and enrolled in the Grades VI and V classes in the Jose Rizal College. It was claimed that the three elder children were then already of legal age and, therefore, no longer covered by the requirement; so with the youngest daughter — Tan Chun Ho — who was adopted by the applicant’s brother according to Chinese custom. Later, she got married and it is contended that she had thus become emancipated. Applicant’s failure to bring them to the Philippines at a much earlier date was allegedly due to his financial difficulties at the start, and later to the stringency of our immigration laws.

As previously ruled by this Court, the provision of the law requiring an applicant for naturalization to enroll his children in recognized local schools, must be complied with for the "duration of the entire period of residence required of him." 7 As herein applicant is invoking his alleged continuous residence for more than 30 years in order to avail of the exemption from filing the necessary declaration of intention, the same period must also be reckoned for purposes of determining whether the other requirements of the law had been complied with. Considering that all of his children were born when the applicant was already residing in the Philippines, the latter was under obligation to give to his said children the training that this country desires of its citizens, if he were to be allowed the privilege of acquiring Philippine citizenship. This, herein applicant failed to do. Four of his children never came to the Philippines. The belated coming of two of them in 1960 and their enrollment in the Grades V and VI classes of a local educational institution, apparently in an effort to create some semblance of compliance with the requirement of the law, did not cure the deficiency. The fact that he was financially incapable of bringing them to the Philippines during the said period, or that the same was made difficult by our strict immigration laws are not valid excuses for non-compliance with the law. 8 Neither does the marriage of a child, 9 or his adoption by a godfather, 10 constitute sufficient reason to exempt an applicant from the legal requirement under consideration. Even on this ground alone, therefore, the application for naturalization should have been denied.

In addition, the oppositor notes that in the clearance from the Anti-Dummy Board which was submitted during the trial, as well as in his income tax returns and residence certificates, the applicant has been referred to as "Sotero Tan Chiong." The petition for naturalization, however, which was duly published, appeared only in the name of Tan Chiong." That the applicant is known by another name which was not disclosed in the published petition is sufficient to warrant the denial of the application. 11

Lastly, while the character witnesses presented by the applicant — a lawyer and an accountant — may be reliable, responsible individuals, yet, considering that the applicant invoked his alleged residence for more than 30 years, in order to qualify as "insurers of the latter’s conduct and behavior", it is necessary that said witnesses must have known him for the same number of years. Since, admittedly, these witnesses came to know the applicant only in 1947, they cannot be considered as "credible witnesses" within the contemplation of the Revised Naturalization Law.

WHEREFORE, and for the foregoing considerations, the decision and order in question are set aside, and the petition for naturalization is dismissed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made permanent. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Fong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15991, May 30, 1961.

2. Republic v. Go Bon Lee, G. R. No. L-11499, April 29, 1961, see also Gan Tsitung v. Republic, G. R. No. L-20819, No. 29, 1965.

3. Cheng v. Republic G. R. No. L-20013, March 30, 1965.

4. Uytengsu v. Republic, G. R. No. L-6379, Sept. 29, 1954; Co. v. Republic, G. R. No. L-15794, Dec. 29, 1962; Ngo v. Rep. G. R. No. L-18319, May 31, 1963; Gaw Ching v. Rep. G. R. No. L-19419, Sept. 30, 1964; Serwani v. Rep. G. R. No. L-18219, Dec. 27, 1963; Qua v. Rep. G. R. No. L-19834, Oct. 27, 1964; Dy Pek Long v. Rep. G. R. No. L-18758, May 30, 1964; Tan v. Rep. G. R. No, L-19694, Mar. 30, 1965; Lee v. Rep. G. R. No. L-20151, Mar. 31, 1965; Cheng v. Rep. G. R. No. L-20013, Mar. 30, 1965; Go v. Rep. G. R. No. L- 20558, Mar. 31, 1965.

5. Sec. 6. Revised Naturalization Law.

6. Chan Lai v. Republic G.R. No. L-11803, Sept. 23, 1959, Tan Chu Keng v. Rep. G. R. No. L-13139, May 24, 1961.

7. Chan Lai v. Republic, supra.

8. Republic v. Go Bon Lee, supra; Chan Lai v. Republic, supra.

9. Lee Cho v. Republic, L-12408, Dec. 28, 1959; Yu Soon Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-11426, April 29, 1959; Tan Ten Koc v. Republic, G. R. No. L-18344, Feb. 28, 1964.

10. Tan Hoi v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15266, Sept. 30, 1960.

11. Yu Seco v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12441, June 30, 1960; Ong Khan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19705, Sept. 30, 1964; Lee v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20151, March 31, 1965; Ang Tee Yee v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20305, March 31, 1965; Go v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20558, March 31, 1965.




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-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25349 December 3, 1965 - SALIH UTUTALUM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-21767 December 17, 1965 - RAFAEL P. MASCARIÑAS v. MONEBRIO F. ABELLANA

  • G.R. No. L-23326 December 18, 1965 - PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSN., INC., v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20711 December 24, 1967

    IN RE: SERAPION LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23800 December 21, 1965 - POLICARPO ALMEDA v. JULIAN FLORENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-24403 December 22, 1965 - DELFIN B. ALBANO, ET., AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20348 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20425 December 24, 1965 - BLUE BAR COCONUT CO v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-20373 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: WONG KIM GOON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20602 December 24, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20914 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: DINTOY TAN SUAREZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21019 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO PO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21218 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: LIM YUEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21790 & 21794 December 24, 1965 - ANDRES E. LAZARO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21859 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: RAMON GAN CHING LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23637 December 24, 1965 - MARCELINO G. COLLADO v. JUAN A. ALONZO

  • G.R. No. L-23778 December 24, 1968

    MANUEL M. AGUILA v. REMIGIO CASTRO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23825 December 24, 1965 - EMMANUEL PELAEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23850 December 24, 1965 - GUILLERMO D. ABAÑO v. SOFRONIO D. AGUIPO

  • G.R. No. L-15783 December 29, 1965 - JOSE SAMALA v. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17280 December 29, 1965 - DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA v. CARLOS IMPERIO

  • G.R. No. L-18333 December 29, 1965 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET., AL. v. PILAR CHAVES CONATO

  • G.R. No. L-20415 December 29, 1965 - IN RE: SIO KIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21026 December 29, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE v. ANGEL C. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-21131-33 December 29, 1965 - SIMEON O. CRUZ, ET AL., v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-21692 December 29, 1965 - ROMAN GONZALES, ET AL., v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-22959 December 29, 1965 - PEDRO LUDOVICE v. MARCOS T. CAUGMA

  • G.R. No. L-23813 December 29, 1965 - BCI EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION v. MOUNTAIN PROVINCE WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-24574 December 29, 1965 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17133 December 31, 1965 - U.S.T. COOPERATIVE STORE v. CITY OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-17411 December 31, 1965 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19571 December 31, 1965 - FRANCISCA PUZON v. MARCELINO GAERLAN, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20240 December 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GRIJALDO

  • G.R. No. L-21262 December 31, 1965 - ALEJANDRO MANALOTO v. MIGUEL P. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21416 December 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO B. GARAY

  • G.R. No. L-21418 December 31, 1965 - ANTONIO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22335 December 31, 1965 - AMANTE P. PURISIMA v. ANGELINO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-22754 December 31, 1965 - RUBEN A. VILLALUZ v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-23240 December 31, 1965 - BENEDICTO LAMBONAO v. ALFREDO O. TERO

  • G.R. No. L-23752 December 31, 1965 - SATURNINO LL. VILLEGAS v. VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ