GR L 12668; (April, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12668; April 30, 1959
Lim Siong, petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Lim Siong, a native and citizen of China, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He arrived in the Philippines in 1926 and had eight children with his wife. The trial court denied his application based on his failure to comply with Section 2, paragraph 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Naturalization Law). The court found that his first two children, Lim Sok Chong (born 1931) and Lim Sok Beng (born 1933), completed their elementary education in China and only came to the Philippines in 1948. These children were enrolled in Philippine schools after 1948 but were not enrolled in such schools during the entire ten-year period of residence required of the applicant prior to filing his petition. The petitioner appealed, arguing there was substantial compliance with the law, citing the case of Pritchard vs. Republic. The Solicitor General raised an additional ground for denial: the petitioner’s lack of good moral character, evidenced by his income tax returns for 1955 and 1956, which reported gross incomes of P1,982.89 and P1,702.11, respectively, despite his testimony of having an average annual income of P6,000 during those years.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly denied Lim Siong’s petition for naturalization.
RULING
Yes, the denial of the petition for naturalization is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision on two grounds. First, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement under Section 2, paragraph 6 of the Naturalization Law that an applicant must have enrolled all his children of school age in public or private schools recognized by the government during the entire period of the required residence. His two eldest children spent their formative school years (from ages 7 to 17 and 7 to 15) in China, only enrolling in Philippine schools in 1948. This did not constitute substantial compliance with the law, whose purpose is to ensure children receive the training desired for future citizens. Second, the petitioner lacked the good moral character required by Section 2, paragraph 3. His failure to declare his true income in his tax returns was conclusive evidence of dishonesty, which is detrimental to the government’s interest in tax collection and indicative of a lack of good moral character. Therefore, the petitioner was ineligible for naturalization.