GR L 13139; (May, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13139; May 24, 1961
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN CHU KENG TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. TAN CHU KENG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Tan Chu Keng filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, claiming exemption from filing a declaration of intention under Commonwealth Act No. 535 due to thirty years of continuous residence. His petition listed only three children born in the Philippines. During cross-examination, it was revealed he had an adult son, Espiritu, from a prior marriage in China, whom he omitted because the son was of age. After the fiscal requested time to file a memorandum, petitioner moved to reopen the case, subsequently disclosing another adult son, Alfonso, also born in China. Petitioner and his counsel explained the omission was based on their belief that only minor children needed to be listed under the law. The lower court granted the petition for citizenship.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in granting Tan Chu Keng’s petition for naturalization despite his failure to disclose all his children in the petition as required by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Naturalization Law. Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 explicitly requires a petitioner to state the name, age, birthplace, and residence of each child, without distinction between minor and adult children. The Court held that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Petitioner’s omission of two adult sons was a fatal defect, as it constituted a failure to fully and truthfully disclose all material facts required by the statute. This failure was not excusable; the belated disclosure only after cross-examination and upon the fiscal’s request for time suggested a lack of candor.
Furthermore, this omission directly impacted petitioner’s claim for exemption from filing a declaration of intention. The exemption under Commonwealth Act No. 535 requires, inter alia, that the applicant has given all his children of school age primary and secondary education in recognized schools. By omitting the two sons, petitioner avoided demonstrating compliance with this educational requirement for them, which he admittedly failed to fulfill. Since he could not validly claim the exemption, his failure to file the required declaration of intention was itself a separate, fatal ground for denial. Naturalization is a privilege, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the State. The petitioner’s non-compliance with these stringent statutory mandates warranted the denial of his application.