Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2611 July 31, 1951
ALEJANDRO KEYSER TAN, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
Teofilo Mendoza for petitioner and appellee.
First Assistants Solicitor General Roberto Gianzon and Solicitor Lucas Lacson for oppositor and appellant.
FERIA, J.:
This is an appeal by the Solicitor General in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the petition for naturalization filed on July 2, 1947, by the appellee Alejandro Keyser Tan.
The appellant makes in his brief the following assignment of error:
I
The lower court erred in finding that the applicant-appellee Alejandro Keyser Tan is exempted from the prerequisite of filing his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines with the office of the Solicitor General one year prior to the filing of his petition for naturalization in court.
II
The lower court erred in not finding that the applicant-appellee Alejandro Keyser Tan is not qualified to become a citizen of the Philippines because he does not own real estate in the Philippines nor has he any lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.
III
The lower court erred in not finding that the appellant-appellee Alejandro Keyser Tan has failed to establish that during the period of his residence in the Philippines he has mingled socially with the Filipinos or has evinced a sincere to learn and embrace the customs, ideals and traditions of the Filipinos.
IV
The lower court erred in not finding that the applicant-appellee has failed to establish that he possesses all the requisites provided by law for acquiring Philippine citizenship particularly the requisite of being in a position to renounce effectively his Chinese nationality as required in Section 12 of our Revised Naturalization Law.
The lower court erred in granting Philippine citizenship to the applicant- appellee Alejandro Keyser Tan.
After due consideration, we are of the opinion that the lower court erred in holding that the petitioner was exempted from filing with the office of the Solicitor General his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, because "the applicant was born in the Philippines and has resided continuously in this country for more than thirty years up to the date of the hearing of this case," and "he has finished the sixth grade in the Anglo American school which is recognize by the Government.
Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 535, provides:
SEC. 6 Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention. — 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, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application, may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intentions upon complying with the other requirements of this Act. . . .
The appellee does not fall under the first exemption, because he admitted during the hearing of this case that he had finished only the sixth grade in an Anglo-Chinese School (not Anglo American School). The law requires that the applicant, to be exempt, must have received the primary and secondary education in the public schools or schools recognized by the government and not limited to any race or nationality. It is obvious that to finish the sixth grade is not equivalent to "have received the primary and secondary education" required at the time the applicant was studying. And there is no evidence in the record to show that the Anglo-Chinese School referred to by the applicant was not limited then to any race and nationality.
Appellee does not also fall under the second exemption. The law provides that the exemption from filing with the Bureau of Justices (now office of Solicitor General), a declaration under oath of applicant's bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, is extended also to "those who have resided continuously in this country for a period of thirty years or more, prior to the filing of his petition for naturalization in court. According to his own admission or contention, the appellee was born on September 28, 1917 (Exhibit D) in the City of Manila, and has continuously resided in the Philippines. But, as his petition for naturalization was filed on July 2, 1947 (page 1 of Record on Appeal), he had not continuously resided in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more prior to the filing of his petition for naturalization in court on July 2, 1947.
In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary for us to pass upon the other assignments of error made by the appellant, and we reverse the decision appealed from and deny the applicant's petition with costs.
So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Tuason, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
