GR L 10202; (January, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10202; January 8, 1958
In the matter of the petition for naturalization of SY CHHUT alias TAN BIN TIONG, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Sy Chhut alias Tan Bin Tiong appealed the denial of his petition for naturalization by the Court of First Instance of Manila. In his sworn declaration of intention and petition, he stated he had not been convicted of any crime and that his conduct was “proper and irreproachable.” The record showed he was criminally convicted for constructing a building without a permit in Manila, fined P20, and paid the fine on August 21, 1951. Appellant later claimed the false statements were unintentional, alleging unawareness of the prosecution and that the fine was paid without his knowledge by Inocencio Tan, whom he described as a building contractor. However, appellant’s brief indicated Tan was not a contractor. Appellant admitted the prosecution and conviction on the witness stand but testified the fine was only P10. Furthermore, his petition was supported by an affidavit from witness Arcebal stating he had known appellant since 1946, which was less than the required ten-year residency period prior to the petition’s filing on February 13, 1954. Arcebal later testified the date was a clerical error. Lastly, appellant testified his children attended private Chinese schools, but no evidence was presented that these schools were government-recognized or taught Philippine history, government, and civics.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly denied Sy Chhut’s petition for naturalization.
RULING
Yes, the order denying the petition is affirmed. The petition was properly denied on multiple grounds. First, appellant made false sworn statements regarding his lack of criminal conviction and irreproachable conduct, which reflected adversely on his moral character and veracity. Second, the petition did not comply with Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as the supporting affidavit from Arcebal failed to attest to personally knowing the petitioner for the required ten-year residency period, rendering the petition fatally defective. Third, appellant failed to establish compliance with Section 2(6) of the Revised Naturalization Law, as there was no evidence that the private schools his children attended were government-recognized or included Philippine history, government, and civics in their curriculum.