GR L 12408; (December, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12408, December 28, 1959
LEE CHO alias SEM LEE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Lee Cho, born in Amoy, China in 1907 to Chinese parents, arrived in the Philippines in February 1921 and settled in Cebu City. He married Sy Siok Bin in 1929, with whom he had 13 children, all born in Cebu. Lee Cho filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The court initially found him qualified in a decision dated August 30, 1956. However, the government filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which was granted. After a rehearing, the court reaffirmed its decision, prompting the government to appeal.
Lee Cho did not file a declaration of intention to become a citizen, claiming exemption under Section 6 of the Naturalization Law. He argued he had continuously resided in the Philippines for over 30 years and had given primary and secondary education to all his children in private schools recognized by the government. The government contested this, asserting that Lee Cho failed to meet the educational requirement for his children, specifically citing his daughters Angelita Lee and Lourdes Lee.
ISSUE
Whether Lee Cho is exempt from filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of the Naturalization Law, which requires continuous residence of 30 years or more and that all his children of school age have received primary and secondary education in schools recognized by the government, where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, denying Lee Cho’s petition for naturalization. The Court held that Lee Cho failed to comply with the educational requirement for exemption from filing a declaration of intention. Specifically:
1. Angelita Lee only reached grade five, with no secondary education, and the explanation that she stopped due to marriage was deemed unsatisfactory.
2. Lourdes Lee studied only up to third year high school, allegedly due to poor health, but subsequently attended a Chinese school with a curriculum that did not include Philippine Civics, History, or Government.
The Court emphasized that the Naturalization Law must be strictly construed to fulfill its nationalistic purpose. Lee Cho’s failure to ensure his children received the required education in Philippine subjects demonstrated a lack of sincerity in embracing Philippine citizenship. Therefore, he was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention and was disqualified from naturalization. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.