Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > March 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20151 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: LEE NG LE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20151. March 31, 1965.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEE NG LEN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEE NG LEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Roberto D. Bores for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; EXEMPTION FROM FILING DECLARATION OF INTENTION; BURDEN OF PROOF ON APPLICANT TO SHOW COMPLIANCE. — In order to be exempt from filing a declaration of intention, an applicant for naturalization must satisfactorily show that all schools attended by him are not limited to students of a particular nationality. The burden of proof of this lies on the applicant. So, where his evidence fails to show that one of the schools attended by him was not limited to any race or nationality, he does not comply with the requirements for such exemption.

2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL FORMER PLACES OF RESIDENCE OR ALL NAMES USED BY PETITIONER FATAL. — The failure of a petitioner for naturalization to specify in his petition all his former places of residence is fatal. So also, his failure to disclose the other names alternatively used by him taints the publication of his petition.

3. ID.; ID.; DUTY OF COURTS IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPOSITION TO A PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. — Absence of opposition to a petition for naturalization will not excuse a court from the obligation of scrutinizing attentively the record of said case and seeing to it that the letter and spirit of the law are satisfied beyond all doubt.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


Appeal by the State from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 46224) declaring appellee Lee Ng Len qualified to be admitted to citizenship of the Republic of the Philippines.

The first issue tendered in this appeal is whether or not petitioner is exempt of the duty to file a declaration of intention as required by law. On this point, the evidence of the petitioner is that he was born in Pasay City on July 4, 1939 (Exh. "M"), a son of Chinese father and mother; that he resided continuously in the Philippines since birth and various places in Manila and Pasay City prior to the filing of his application for naturalization; that he finished his primary courses of education at the Manila Chinese school, and the secondary courses at the University of Sto. Tomas, and, thereafter, at the Mapua Institute of Technology where he is studying in the fifth year. 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 (cf. Wang I. Fu v. Republic, L-15819, Sept. 29, 1962; Hao Su Siong v. Republic, L-13045, July 30, 1962; Sy See v. Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962; 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.

Other reversible errors in the appealed judgment are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The failure to give due weight to the applicant’s failure to specify in his application all his former places of residence in addition to the present dwelling place at 479 Herran, Manila, a failure that is fatal (Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, Aug. 31, 1961). The evidence affirmatively shows that the applicant had previously resided at 145 Herran, Manila; 806 Sta. Mesa, Manila; and Pasay City.

(2) The trial court also overlooked petitioner’s failure or refusal to disclose in the petition that the petitioner was also known by the names of "Allen N. Lee" and "Allen Ng Lee", as shown in his school certificates, leading to the publication of his petition under the name of "Lee Ng Len", exclusively, that being the sole appellation revealed in the petition. As ruled in Yu Seco v. Republic, 108 Phil. 807, failure to disclose the other names alternatively used by the petitioner taints the publication of his application, and warrants reversal.

Because of the foregoing defects, a reversal of the appealed judgment is justified, without need of going into the other defects discussed in the Solicitor General’s brief.

It seems opposite to emphasize once more that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that our Republic can confer upon an alien. It is the duty of everyone, judges, lawyers, and citizens, to see to it that this valuable privilege be not conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with one law. In matters of privilege, no presumption can be indulged in favor of a claimant. Absence of opposition, therefore, will not excuse a court from the obligation of scrutinizing attentively the record of naturalization cases and seeing to it that the letter and spirit of the law are satisfied beyond any doubt.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the petition for naturalization is ordered dismissed. Costs against petitioner for naturalization Lee Ng Len.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, 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






March-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24022 March 3, 1965 - ILOILO PALAY AND CORN PLANTERS ASSO., INC., ET AL. v. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16601 March 24, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES v. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20509 March 24, 1965 - LESME BAQUILOD, ET AL. v. MARCELO M. BOBADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18351 March 26, 1965 - CHOY KING TEE v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18753 March 26, 1965 - VICENTE B. TEOTICO v. ANA DEL VAL CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-18799 March 26, 1965 - JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18359 March 26, 1965 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19582 March 26, 1965 - UY CHING HO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16773 March 30, 1965 - UP-TO-DATE SHIRT FACTORY v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-19694 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: LEONIDAS S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20013 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: DALMACIO CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 205 March 31, 1965 - CANDIDO SAN LUIS v. BENJAMIN B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13719 March 31, 1965 - FILEMON PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14526 March 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14678 March 31, 1965 - JUAN SERRANO v. FEDERICO MIAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16441 March 31, 1965 - ALFREDO BOLLOZOS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16744 March 31, 1965 - SIMPLICIO ALINSONORIN v. MATEO M. CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17798 March 31, 1965 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965 - JOSE B. AZNAR v. RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18725 March 31, 1965 - JOSE MA. LEDESMA v. FELIX VILLASEÑOR

  • G.R. No. L-18761 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMIRIL ASMAWIL

  • G.R. No. L-19142 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRECIO LUMAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-19482 March 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO D. UY v. JOSE R. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19868 March 31, 1965 - IGMIDIO CANOVAS v. BATANGAS TRANS. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20003-05 March 31, 1965 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAVINO SISICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20093 March 31, 1965 - CAPT. J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, ET AL. v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20151 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: LEE NG LE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20305 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: ANG TEE YEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20455 March 31, 1965 - NAZARIO CATUIZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20504 March 31, 1965 - NATIONAL DEV. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20558 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: MELITON O. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965 - WONG WOO YIU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21597 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO C. MONTE

  • G.R. No. L-22354 March 31, 1965 - KWOK KAM LIEN, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-22537 March 31, 1965 - EUSEBIO TAÑALA v. MARIANO LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22779 March 31, 1965 - HADJI LOMONTOD MACASUNDIG v. DIRUGUNGUN MACALANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23537 March 31, 1965 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23721 March 31, 1965 - R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24191 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. ADOLFO

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.