G.R. No. L-15266; September 30, 1960
Tan Hoi, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On October 4, 1955, Tan Hoi filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila. He alleged that one of his children, Tan Nam, was born on October 10, 1949, and was residing in Hongkong. On December 28, 1956, the court granted the petition. On January 17, 1959, a hearing was held preparatory to Tan Hoi’s oath-taking. At this hearing, Tan Hoi declared that he had four children, including Tan Nam, who was 9 years old and had been living in Hongkong with his godfather and had never been in the Philippines. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition to take the oath, arguing that Tan Nam, being of school age and never in the Philippines, indicated Tan Hoi’s failure to enroll him in a school recognized by the Office of Private Education, constituting an act “prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies” under the Revised Naturalization Law. Tan Hoi explained that after his wife’s death in China, the child was placed under his godfather’s care, enrolled in a Hongkong school, and the godfather had requested consent for adoption four years prior. The trial court overruled the opposition, allowed Tan Hoi to take the oath on January 28, 1959, and he took it on January 29, 1959. The government moved for reconsideration and cancellation of the oath, which was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Tan Hoi is entitled to take the oath of allegiance and be issued a certificate of naturalization despite his failure to enroll his minor child of school age, Tan Nam, in a school in the Philippines recognized by the Office of Private Education, as required by the Revised Naturalization Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. The educational requirement under Section 2, paragraph 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which mandates that an applicant must have enrolled his minor children of school age in recognized schools in the Philippines where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught, is mandatory and reflects a fundamental government policy. Tan Hoi’s child, Tan Nam, was born in 1949 and was already seven years old at the time of the hearing for naturalization over two years prior, yet had never been in the Philippines. Tan Hoi’s failure to bring his child to the Philippines to comply with this requirement constituted a failure to fulfill a qualification for naturalization. His excuse—that the child was under the care of a godfather in Hongkong who intended to adopt him—was insufficient. First, the evidence for adoption was merely an affidavit and not conclusive. Second, even if adopted, under prevailing jurisprudence (Cheng Ling vs. Galang), adoption does not cause the child to acquire the citizenship of the adopter; the child would retain the citizenship of the natural father and would thus still benefit from the naturalization. Therefore, Tan Hoi’s failure to educate his child as required by law was an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation under Republic Act No. 530 . Consequently, the oath of allegiance taken by Tan Hoi on January 29, 1959, was declared without legal force and effect, and any naturalization certificate issued was ordered cancelled.