G.R. No. L-11426; April 29, 1959
In the matter of the petition of Yu Soon Seng to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. YU SOON SENG, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Yu Soon Seng, a Chinese citizen, appealed the denial of his naturalization application by the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The lower court found that the applicant possessed all necessary qualifications and no disqualifications under the law. However, it denied the application because the applicant failed to file a declaration of intention as required by Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 575 and, more critically, because four of his nine children did not receive primary and secondary education in public schools or recognized private schools as mandated by Sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. The four children were Yu Eng, Crisostomo Yu, Cristeta Yu, and Teofila Yu. The court found these children were of legal age, had not finished high school, and were no longer studying.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner-appellant’s failure to ensure that all his children of school age received primary and secondary education in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 575 is a valid ground for denying his petition for naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, denying the naturalization application. The Court conducted a review of the evidence pertaining to the four children:
1. Yu Eng: Born in 1921, the evidence only showed enrollment in Grade II for the 1934-35 school year. There was no proof he finished elementary school or ever enrolled in high school, and the applicant provided no valid reason for this failure.
2. Crisostomo Yu: Born in 1921, he was shown to have enrolled in second and third-year high school from 1945-1947 but did not attend school for about four years before his marriage in 1951 and did not finish the secondary course.
3. Cristeta Yu: The evidence showed she was a high school graduate, thus complying with the law’s requirement.
4. Teofila Yu: She married while in Grade VI, which the Court implied was a circumstance (marriage) that explained her failure to complete her education.
The Court concluded that the applicant failed to comply with the educational requirements for at least two of his children, Yu Eng and Crisostomo Yu. The appellant’s argument that the children’s marriages and work to support their families constituted a valid excuse, akin to the ruling in Pritchard vs. Republic, was rejected. The Court found the applicant failed to present valid reasons making it impossible for him to comply with the legal provision. Following precedents in Yrostorza vs. Republic and Manzano Dy Chan Tiao vs. Republic, the denial of the application was proper. The decision appealed from was affirmed.