G.R. No. L-16459; July 26, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG PUE alias VICENTE TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANG PUE (alias VICENTE TAN), petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.

FACTS

On September 24, 1958, Ang Pue alias Vicente Tan filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. He alleged he was born in Chingkang, China, on September 21, 1920, a citizen of Nationalist China, and arrived in the Philippines in December 1933, residing continuously since then, including at least one year in Iloilo City immediately preceding the petition. He stated he was married to “Koo” Shiok Tuan, a resident of Hongkong, and they had two sons, Pedro Ang Tan (born October 2, 1941) and Eduardo Ang Tan (born September 15, 1945), both born in Chingkang, China. He claimed his two sons never had an opportunity to stay in the Philippines as he came alone. After due publication and hearing, where the City Fiscal opposed the petition, the lower court rendered a decision admitting Ang Pue to Philippine citizenship. The Republic of the Philippines appealed, contending Ang Pue failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended.

ISSUE

Whether Ang Pue complied with the mandatory requirement under Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended, which requires an applicant for naturalization to have enrolled his minor children of school age in recognized Philippine schools where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught, during the entire period of residence required prior to the hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed Ang Pue’s application for naturalization. The Court held that compliance with Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 is mandatory. Failure to enroll minor children of school age in the prescribed schools constitutes a valid ground for denying the petition. The Court cited previous rulings (Chan vs. Republic, Tan vs. Republic) establishing this mandatory nature. It further held that the fact that the applicant’s children could not be brought to the Philippines due to the civil war in China or strict Philippine immigration laws (as cited in Lian Chua vs. Republic, Ng Sin vs. Republic, Sy Kiap vs. Republic) does not constitute a valid excuse for non-compliance. Additionally, the Court noted that the petition itself showed his sons were born in China in 1941 and 1945, which cast serious doubt on his claim of continuous residence in the Philippines since December 1933.