G.R. No. L-14550; July 26, 1960
In the matter of the petition of Ong Kue to be admitted a Citizen of the Philippines. ONG KUE, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Ong Kue, a Chinese citizen residing in the Philippines since 1924, filed an application for naturalization on December 9, 1957, without having filed a prior declaration of intention as required by Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental found him qualified and granted his application on August 16, 1958. The Republic appealed, contending that Ong Kue was not exempt from filing the declaration of intention. The government argued that while Ong Kue had resided in the Philippines for over 30 years, he failed to meet the additional exemption requirement of having given all his children primary and secondary education in schools prescribed by law. Specifically, two of his eleven children, Ong Pick Du and Ong Eng Soy, were not shown to have finished their secondary education. Ong Kue’s petition and testimony confirmed that these children did not complete high school. However, Ong Kue claimed valid reasons for this non-compliance: Ong Pick Du got married in 1950, thus releasing her from his parental authority, and Ong Eng Soy stopped schooling due to ill health since 1957. He submitted a marriage contract and a medical certificate to support these claims.

ISSUE

Whether Ong Kue is exempt from filing a declaration of intention, specifically whether his failure to have two children finish secondary education is justified by valid reasons, thereby exempting him from that requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The Court held that the reasons advanced by Ong Kue for his two children’s failure to finish secondary education, if proven true, may constitute valid and sufficient reasons to exempt him from the educational requirement under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as established in Pritchard vs. Republic and Yu Soon Seng vs. Republic. These precedents rule that an applicant may be exempt from the requirement to provide children with primary and secondary education when valid reasons render compliance impossible. To avoid the necessity of a new application and repetition of proceedings, the case was ordered remanded to the court of origin to reopen the hearing and allow the parties to establish or disprove the existence of circumstances justifying the alleged non-compliance. The decision was concurred in by the Court en banc.