G.R. No. L-1687; May 23, 1951
CIPRIANO KING, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Cipriano King, born of Chinese parents in Victoria, Tarlac, on September 16, 1925, petitioned to become a citizen of the Philippines under Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended. Except for two brief childhood visits to China, he resided continuously in the Philippines. He completed elementary education at Victoria Elementary School, enrolled for secondary education at Macabulos Memorial High School, and was a senior high school student at Gregg Business Institute at the time of the hearing. He speaks and writes English and Tagalog. He owned a lot and house in Manila, acquired with money advanced by his father as inheritance, yielding a monthly rental income of P400. He is not a polygamist, not opposed to organized government, not suffering from any incurable disease, and has no criminal convictions. The Republic opposed the petition, arguing that King lacked the required one-year residence in Tarlac immediately preceding the filing, failed to file a declaration of intention, and did not own sufficient real estate or have a lucrative occupation at the time of filing.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner complied with the one-year residence requirement in the province where the petition was filed.
2. Whether the petitioner was exempt from filing a declaration of intention due to his birth and education in the Philippines.
3. Whether the petitioner possessed the required real estate ownership or lucrative occupation and was of good moral character.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree granting naturalization.
1. On Residence: The one-year residence requirement means legal residence (animus manendi), not uninterrupted physical presence. The petitioner’s legal residence was Victoria, Tarlac, where he resided since birth; his stay in Manila was for study purposes, with the intent to return. This satisfied the requirement, and the citizens of Victoria had sufficient knowledge of his character.
2. On Declaration of Intention: The petitioner, born in the Philippines and having received his primary and secondary education in schools recognized by the Government (though he was only a senior in high school at the time of filing and hearing), was held to have substantially complied with the education requirement under Section 6 of the law. Thus, he was exempt from filing a declaration of intention.
3. On Property and Moral Character: The petitioner’s ownership of the real estate was established, notwithstanding that the Transfer Certificate of Title was issued after the filing date, as ownership can precede formal titling. The Court found no basis to conclude he lacked good moral character based on this timing.
4. On Chinese Law: The requirement of Chinese law for permission to renounce citizenship was held not to be a requirement under Philippine naturalization law.
The decree was affirmed, without costs.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Pablo, dissenting (with whom Justice Montemayor concurred), argued that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner had not completed his secondary education when he filed his application (he was only a fourth-year high school student). Therefore, he was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention under the law. The dissent emphasized that the law’s exemption applies only to those who have received both primary and secondary education, not to those who have only partially completed secondary education.