GR L 10972; (May, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10972; May 28, 1958
PERFECTO GOTAUCO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Perfecto Gotauco, born in Manila on April 18, 1925, of Chinese parentage, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila on June 9, 1956. He alleged continuous residence in the Philippines since birth, marriage to Cristina Lim Uy (a Chinese national), and having one child, Janet Gotauco, born on March 23, 1954. He completed his primary, secondary, and tertiary education in government-recognized schools, was employed as a salesman with an annual income of P2,400, and co-owned inherited land in Manila. He claimed proficiency in English and Tagalog, belief in constitutional principles, good moral character, and lack of any disqualifications. The petition was supported by affidavits from Felicisimo Celis and Mauro David. After publication, the lower court granted his petition for naturalization on May 31, 1956. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed, contending that Gotauco failed to file a declaration of intention as required by law because he could not comply with the additional requirement of having given primary and secondary education to all his children in public schools or recognized private schools.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Perfecto Gotauco is exempt from filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Act, considering his only child was below school age at the time of his application.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, granting the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the exemption from filing a declaration of intention, available to an applicant born in the Philippines who has continuously resided therein for thirty years, includes an additional requirement that the applicant “has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.” However, this requirement applies only to children of school age. At the time Gotauco filed his petition, his only child, Janet, was two years, two months, and sixteen days old, which is below school age. Therefore, his failure to enroll her was for a cause not attributable to him, and it would be unjust and unreasonable to require compliance. The exemption was properly availed of, and the lower court did not err in granting the petition. The decision was affirmed without costs.