G.R. No. L-21199; May 29, 1967
JOSE G. SYSON, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On March 31, 1959, Jose G. Syson (formerly Chi Chian) filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He alleged he was born in China in 1917, arrived in the Philippines in 1933, was married to Ang Eng, and had three children. He claimed an ability to speak and write Spanish and Tagalog, and an average annual income of P7,599.93 from 1956-1958 as assistant manager of Sy Juan & Co. The Solicitor General filed a formal opposition, contending that a character witness failed to substantiate her affidavit, petitioner could not speak and write Spanish, and petitioner failed to disclose two other minor children, Chi Guiap and Chi Chiu, born in China in 1940 and 1949 respectively. The Solicitor General presented documents, including petitioner’s sworn statement to the Bureau of Immigration dated March 13, 1958, stating he had five children. On July 26, 1960, the trial court granted the petition. The Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner then filed a motion for rehearing, which was granted. At rehearing, petitioner’s wife testified that the two other children had died in China in 1942 and 1949. The First Assistant Solicitor General filed a motion withdrawing the appeal, which the court granted. Two years later, on September 17, 1962, petitioner filed to take his oath. The Solicitor General (through Assistant Solicitor Frine C. Zaballero) opposed, arguing the decision was not final due to an improper withdrawal of appeal and petitioner had not complied with requirements. On December 21, 1962, the court (now presided by a different judge) issued an order allowing petitioner to take his oath, which he did, and a certificate of naturalization was issued. The Solicitor General appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in granting the petition for naturalization, allowing the petitioner to take the oath of allegiance, and ordering the issuance of the certificate of naturalization.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of December 21, 1962, reversed the decision of July 26, 1960, dismissed the petition, declared the oath without force and effect, and ordered the certificate of naturalization cancelled. The Court found petitioner not qualified for Philippine citizenship on several grounds:
1. Failure to State All Children in Petition: Petitioner’s sworn statement to the Bureau of Immigration in 1958 showed he had five children. Certificates of live birth for his children Maria (1957) and Anita (1961), signed by his wife and himself respectively, indicated they had multiple living children and no deceased children at those times, contradicting the claim at rehearing that two had died earlier. This failure to make a full and truthful disclosure of all his children in his petition for naturalization was a fatal defect, indicating a lack of good moral character and affecting the court’s jurisdiction.
2. Lack of Lucrative Income: At the time of his petition, petitioner had a wife and five children to support. His net annual income of P8,114.57 (as shown in his 1959 tax return) was insufficient to qualify as having a lucrative trade or profession as required by the Naturalization Law.
3. Failure to Enroll School-Age Children: Petitioner admitted he had not enrolled his children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the government, which is a violation of the requirement to provide primary and secondary education to all children in public or private schools.