GR L 20804; (January, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20804 January 22, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. FELIX LIM alias LIM ENG PHO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Felix Lim, also known as Lim Eng Pho, is a single, Chinese citizen born in Cebu City on June 24, 1939. He completed his primary education at Cebu Chinese High School (now Cebu Eastern College) and his secondary course at the University of Southern Philippines. On December 21, 1960, he filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Cebu without having previously filed the declaration of intention required by Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The lower court granted his petition. The City Fiscal of Cebu appealed, arguing that: (1) the applicant was not exempt from filing the declaration of intention because he failed to prove that his primary school was not limited to any race or nationality; and (2) the applicant did not conduct himself properly during his residence as he used an alias in violation of Commonwealth Act 142.
ISSUE
Whether or not Felix Lim is exempt from filing a declaration of intention prior to his petition for naturalization.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization. The requirement to file a declaration of intention one year prior to the petition is mandatory. An exemption under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, applies to a person born in the Philippines who received primary and secondary education in government-recognized schools “not limited to any race or nationality.” While the Cebu Chinese High School is government-recognized, the only evidence presented to show it was not limited to a particular race or nationality was the applicant’s own testimony. The Court held this unsupported testimony was inadequate to meet the burden of proof, which rests on the applicant claiming the exemption. Since he failed to satisfactorily prove his exemption and did not file the required declaration, his petition must be denied. The Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the second issue regarding the use of an alias.