Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > January 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21198 January 22, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHO KUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21198. January 22, 1966.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LIM CHO KUAN KNOWN ALSO MARIANO LIM, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM CHO KUAN alias MARIANO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Solicitor General for the oppositor and Appellant.

J. A. Uy for the petitioner and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; EXEMPTION FROM FILING OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A FILIPINO CITIZEN; REQUISITES. — For an applicant born in the Philippines to be exempt from filing a declaration of intention, he should have received his primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality (Sec. 6, Revised Naturalization Law). That the school where applicant finished his elementary education is not limited to any race or nationality must be proved by him and cannot be presumed from the fact that the school is recognized by the Government. The deficiency is fatal to his claim for exemption.

2. ID.; FILING OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION MANDATORY. — The filing of a declaration of intention is mandatory and can only be dispensed with if the applicant is exempt therefrom. (Tan v. Republic 89 Phil. 624). This requirement not haying been complied with, the petition for naturalization has to be denied.

3. ID.; GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND PROPER AND IRREPROACHABLE CONDUCT MUST BE PROVED SEPARATELY. — Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires (1) that the applicant must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; and (2) he must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. The first part speaks of the personal quality and belief of the applicant; whereas, the second part speaks of his public and social conduct. Stated otherwise, a person’s conduct in relation to the constituted government and the community at large may be irreproachable but his private life or dealings with a particular individual may be such as to render his moral character objectionable. For this reason, the law mentions the aforesaid requisites separately. It follows that good moral character and proper and irreproachable conduct should be alleged and proved separately.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J. P., J.:


Not satisfied with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, rendered February 8, 1962, granting the petition for naturalization filed by Lim Cho Kuan alias Mariano Lim, the Solicitor General has appealed.

Lim Cho Kuan was born in the Philippines on December 23, 1936 of Chinese parents. He completed his elementary education in 1953 at the Philippine Chinese High School and secondary education in 1957 at the Lyceum of the Philippines.

On November 7, 1960 he filed a petition for naturalization claiming therein exemption from the filing of a declaration of intention on the ground that he was born in the Philippines and completed his elementary and secondary education in schools "duly recognized by the Republic of the Philippines." The petition did not alleged that applicant is "of good moral character."

In the hearing of the petition for naturalization no evidence was presented to prove that the Philippine Chinese High School is not limited to any race or nationality.

The Solicitor General, therefore, raises the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Is Lim Cho Kuan exempted from filing a declaration of intention?

(2) Is failure to allege in the petition for naturalization that applicant is of good moral character fatal?

Applicant did not file the declaration of intention required in Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law on the ground, as stated, that he is exempt from filing the same. For an applicant born in the Philippines to be exempt from filing a declaration of intention, he should have received his primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality (Sec. 6, Revised Naturalization Law).

The records of this case bear no evidence showing that the Philippine Chinese High School where Lim Cho Kuan finished his elementary education is not limited to any race or nationality. Such point must be proved by applicant and cannot be presumed from the fact that the school is recognized by the Government. The deficiency is fatal to his claim for exemption.

The filing of a declaration of intention is mandatory and can only be dispensed with if the applicant is exempt therefrom. 1 This requirement not having been complied with, the petition for naturalization has to be denied.

Appellant further contends that the petition for naturalization should not have been granted on the ground that it did not allege that Lim Cho Kuan is a person of good moral character. On the other hand, applicant argues that the same is necessarily included in the following allegation in paragraph 12 of his Petition. "I have conducted myself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of my residence in the Philippines in my relations with the constituted authorities as well as with the community in which I am living."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. Qualifications. — Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"Third. He must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above-quoted provision contains two part: (1) That the applicant must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; and (2) he must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. The first part speaks of the personal quality and belief of the applicant; whereas, the second part speaks of his public and social conduct. Stated otherwise, a person’s conduct in relation to the constituted government and the community at large may be irreproachable but his private life or dealings with a particular individual may be such as to render his moral character objectionable. For this reason, the Law mentions the aforesaid requisites separately and even puts a comma between them. It follows that good moral character and proper and irreproachable conduct should be alleged and proved separately. Otherwise, the Legislature would have omitted the phrases "he must be of good moral character . . ." if the same is necessarily included in the phrase "must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as the community in which he is living."cralaw virtua1aw library

Provisions of the Revised Naturalization Law are strictly construed and non-compliance therewith, as in this case calls for denial of the application for naturalization. 2

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. Petition for naturalization denied, with costs against petitioner. So ordered.

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

Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Tan v. Republic, 89 Phil. 624.

2. Pidelo v. Republic, 97 Phil. 632; Co v. Republic, L-12150, May 26, 1960; Ching v. Republic, L-15955, Oct. 26, 1961.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





January-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22259 January 19, 1966 FELIPE YUPANGCO & SONS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-20088 January 22, 1966 LUZON STEVEDORING CORP. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-20804 January 22, 1966 IN RE: FELIX LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21179 January 22, 1966 IN RE: MARIANO NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21198 January 22, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHO KUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21828 January 22, 1966 IN RE: ALFRED BUN THO KHU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25399 January 27, 1966 MARIANO H. ACUÑA v. CESARIO GOLEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18694 January 31, 1966 VALLE BROS., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18866 January 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO DEVELOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18967 January 31, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18997 January 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BAUTIL PEDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19467 January 31, 1966 FAUSTINO SAN JUAN v. SPS JEAN SOCCHI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19698 January 31, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CONSTANTINO DERPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19718 January 31, 1966 PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20098 January 31, 1966 SILVERIO LATAG v. MARCELO BANOG

  • G.R. No. L-20144 January 31, 1966 PMC v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20375 January 31, 1966 IN RE: RAFAEL PE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20497 January 31, 1966 ANTONIA VDA. DE HUERTA v. DIONISIO H. ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20622 January 31, 1966 IN RE: LIM GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20738 January 31, 1966 JULIANA SOLORIA, ET AL. v. CEFRONIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20213 January 31, 1966 MARIANO E. GARCIA v. CHIEF OF STAFF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20836 January 31, 1966 ANA ALARCON, ET AL. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21851 and L-21924-26 January 31, 1966 MARCOS ESCOBAR, ET AL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21333 January 31, 1966 YU AN KIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20803 January 31, 1966 CHAN KIAN v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-15939 January 31, 1966 ANGELES UBALDE PUIG, ET AL. v. ESTELA MAGBANUA PEÑAFLORIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21046 January 31, 1966 SINFOROSO GALIMA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21417 January 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS QUINTAB

  • G.R. No. L-21565 January 31, 1966 ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO v. CITY MAYOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21809 January 31, 1966 GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL. v. JOSE V. SALAMAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22199 January 31, 1966 MALABON RESTAURANT, ET AL. v. HEARING OFFICER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22388 January 31, 1966 DR. IRINEO P. SIA, ET AL. v. PABLO CUNETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22785, L-22826, L-22937 January 31, 1966 CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 January 31, 1966 MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25444 January 31, 1966 WENCESLAO RANCAP LAGUMBAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.