GR L 20910; (November, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20910 November 27, 1965
YAO LONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Yao Long filed a petition for naturalization as a Philippine citizen on October 14, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. He claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention, arguing he had resided continuously in the Philippines for over 32 years and had studied in private schools recognized by the government where Philippine history, government, and civics were taught. He also claimed to have no children. The trial court granted his petition. The government appealed, contending the court lacked jurisdiction due to petitioner’s failure to file the required declaration of intention and to allege all his former places of residence in his petition. The record showed petitioner was born in China, married a Chinese citizen, and had two children born in China in 1941 and 1946, which he concealed. His residence in the Philippines was interrupted by trips to China in 1940 (for over 10 months) and 1946 (for about three months). Furthermore, immigration records indicated his arrival date was January 1, 1933, not 1928 as he claimed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction and granting the petition for naturalization despite petitioner’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for exemption from filing a declaration of intention and for properly alleging all former places of residence.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. Petitioner was not entitled to exemption from filing a declaration of intention. His claimed continuous residence of over 30 years was not established due to interruptions by his trips to China and a discrepancy in his arrival date. More importantly, he had two children to whom he failed to give the required education in schools recognized by the Philippine government, a condition for the exemption he claimed. His concealment of these children reflected adversely on his moral character. Additionally, his petition was fatally defective for failing to allege all his former places of residence, a mandatory requirement under Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended, which affects the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition for naturalization was denied.