GR L 16987; (June, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16987; June 21, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF AMANDO ONG APACIBLE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. AMANDO ONG APACIBLE, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Amando Ong Apacible filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Rizal on July 18, 1958. The Solicitor General opposed the petition. After a hearing, the lower court granted the petition on March 30, 1960. The petitioner claimed exemption from the legal requirement of filing a Declaration of Intention one year prior to his petition, asserting that he was born in the Philippines and had resided there continuously since birth. To prove his birth in the Philippines, he presented a Landing Certificate of Residence (Exhibit E) issued upon his return from a visit to China, as he alleged the local civil registry could not find his birth certificate. The lower court accepted this and found him exempt. The Republic appealed, contesting the sufficiency of this evidence to establish his birth in the Philippines and, consequently, his exemption from filing the Declaration of Intention.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in holding that petitioner Amando Ong Apacible was exempt from the duty to file a Declaration of Intention, thereby assuming jurisdiction over his naturalization petition despite the alleged defect.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. The Court held that the petitioner was not exempt from the requirement of filing a Declaration of Intention. Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Naturalization Law, an alien is exempt from this requirement only if born in the Philippines and has received primary and secondary education in recognized schools, or has resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty years or more. The Court found the evidence presented by the petitioner—a Landing Certificate of Residence—to be utterly insufficient to prove he was born in the Philippines. The exemption must be strictly construed, and the evidence to claim it must be clear and convincing. The loss of the birth certificate did not justify accepting secondary evidence that was inadequate for the purpose. Consequently, the lower court committed a reversible error in assuming jurisdiction over the petition without the required Declaration of Intention. The naturalization petition was denied.