GR 21218; (December, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21218 December 24, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LIM YUEN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM YUEN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Lim Yuen filed a petition for naturalization on November 11, 1960. At that time, he had eight children. During the hearing in the lower court (from August 9, 1961, to July 7, 1962), his eldest child, Lolita Lim, was enrolled at St. Theresa’s Chinese Academy in Dagupan City, and three other children (Henry, Purita, and Lucia Lim) were enrolled at Santiago Chinese School in Santiago, Isabela. The enrollment in these schools was predominantly Chinese, with only a few Filipino students. After the Solicitor General moved for reconsideration of the lower court’s decision granting naturalization, the enrollment of three children was transferred to Northeastern College in Santiago, Isabela. However, Lolita Lim seemingly remained enrolled at St. Theresa’s Chinese Academy, which had government recognition to operate a complete elementary course for Chinese since 1958.
ISSUE
Whether Lim Yuen has evinced a sincere desire to embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos, which is a requirement for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela and denied the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the enrollment of an applicant’s children in Chinese schools, where the student population is almost entirely Chinese, permits the inference that the applicant has not shown a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals. This constitutes a disqualification under the Naturalization Law. The transfer of some children to a different school after the motion for reconsideration does not negate the applicant’s behavior prior to and during the proceedings, which failed to demonstrate the requisite positive, overt, and convincing acts of embracing Filipino culture. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the second ground of appeal regarding the credibility of a character witness.