[ G.R. No. L-25814, July 30, 1969 ]
PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, CEZAR
LUCHAYCO, ALSO KNOWN AS CESAR LU, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,
VS. REPUBLIC
OF THE
PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
The grant of citizenship
to Cezar Luchayco is
challenged by the Republic of the Philippines in this appeal from a lower court decision
of August 9, 1965. The main ground for opposition is the
lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, there being a failure to
file a declaration of intention on the part of the petitioner, acting on the
belief that he was exempt from such a requirement. Such is not the case however, according to
the Republic, as there was no showing that he did receive his primary and
secondary education in public schools or schools recognized by the Government
and not limited to any race or nationality.[1] If such
view were to prevail, then a reversal of the lower court decision is called
for.
At the hearing of this
case, the petitioner, testifying as a witness, declared that he obtained his
primary education in Iloilo
Chinese Commercial High School which, according to him, was open also to
Filipino students.[2] He added that during the time he was a
student at such school there were Filipino students who were his classmates
with whom he associated "in class activities, in games, in social
activities, excursions, and others."[3] He received his intermediate and secondary
education at the Sun Yat Sen High School, whose principal was at the time Kuo Ching Yuan.[4] Again, he did affirm that such a school was
open to all students regardless of nationality, religion or race including
Filipinos, several of whom were his classmates and with whom he likewise
associated in the activities mentioned above.[5]
There was no other
testimony regarding his compliance with the statutory requirement to justify
his exemption from filing a declaration of intention.[6] There was then a deficiency in proof, fatal
in its effects. So it was categorically
held in Lim v. Republic.[7] Thus:
"As stated, the Cebu Chinese High School where applicant Felix Lim completed his
primary education is recognized by the Government. No evidence, however, aside from applicant's
own testimony, was presented to show that said school is not limited to a
particular race or nationality. To
our mind, his testimony, unsupported by other competent evidence, is
inadequate. The burden is on him to
present such competent evidence, he being the claimant of the exemption, and
since he failed to do so, he cannot be entitled to the exemption sought. And inasmuch as he filed no declaration of
intention, his petition for naturalization must be denied."
The above ruling is foreshadowed by what was held by us in Lee v.
Republic,[8]
where we stressed the following:
"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 * *
*; 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." An excerpt from Ng v. Republic[9]
is likewise relevant: "Besides, it
is now well settled that enrolment in Chinese (or other foreign) school raises
the inference that the applicant is subject to a disqualification, namely,
failure to evince 'a sincere desire to embrace our customs, traditions and
ideals.'"
The case against the grant of citizenship in the light of the
foregoing seems to be particularly impressive.
As far back as 1950, there has been a rejection of the liberal
construction of the above provision of the Naturalization Law.[10]
It is easy to understand why. As stated
by us in Guy Co Chia v. Republic:[11]
"This educational requirement is necessary not only to test the sincerity
of purpose of petitioner but to give him the proper perspective regarding the
ideals and principles of the citizenship he seeks to embrace."
It would be to overturn then an impressive array of decisions
previously noted if we were to uphold the lower court. We are not disposed to do so, as we adhere to
the basic concept that the grant of citizenship being a highly regarded
privilege, there must be a full and strict compliance with the requirements of
the law before its benefits can be enjoyed.
Under that fundamental postulate and with the lack of evidence to substantiate
his claim for exemption from filing a declaration of intention, the petition in
this case ought not to have been granted by the lower court. With the view we take of this particular
jurisdictional objection, there is no need to inquire into the other grounds of
opposition.
WHEREFORE, the decision of August 9, 1965 is reversed. With costs against petitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.Teehankee, J., in the result.
Zaldivar and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.
[1]
The jurisdiction of the lower court is likewise assailed in this appeal on the
ground that the petitioner has not made a full disclosure in his petition for
naturalization of all the names by which he is known.
[2]
T.s.n., pp. 44-45.
[3]
Ibid, p. 45.
[5]
Ibid, pp. 47-48.
[6]
According to the Revised Naturalization
Law: "Persons born in the
Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public
schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality, x x x, may be
naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying
with the other requirements of this Act." Commonwealth Act No. 473 as
amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535, Section
6 (1940).
[7]
16 SCRA 12 (1966).
[8]
L-20151, March 31, 1965. The doctrine
was followed in Uy Chin Hong v. Republic, 17
SCRA 220 (1966). Cf. Sia
v. Republic, L-20290, August 31, 1965.
[9]
25 SCRA 574 (1968).
[11]
10 SCRA 745 (1964).
This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
No comments:
Post a Comment