GR L 21138; (November, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21138 November 27, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROBERTO TING TONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ROBERTO TING TONG, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Roberto Ting Tong filed a petition for naturalization on December 29, 1959. A decision granting his petition was rendered on November 8, 1960. On November 19, 1962, he filed a motion to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance. After a hearing, the Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order on February 1, 1963, refusing to allow him to take the oath. The denial was based on the fact that at the time he initiated the proceedings, he had a ten-year-old son, Ting Chua Lu, who was not enrolled in any public or private school in the Philippines because the child was residing in Hongkong. The son only came to the Philippines on May 24, 1960, and was enrolled in school thereafter, but this enrollment occurred after the petition was filed.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner complied with the requirement under paragraph 6, Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Naturalization Law) that he must have enrolled his minor children of school age in a recognized public or private school in the Philippines prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court denying the petitioner’s motion to take his oath. The Court held that the legal requirement is explicit: the enrollment of minor children of school age must take place “prior to the hearing” of the petition for naturalization. Since the petitioner’s son was not enrolled in any Philippine school at the time the petition was filed in December 1959, and was only enrolled after his arrival in the Philippines in May 1960 (which was after the petition had been filed), the petitioner failed to comply with this mandatory qualification. The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the Pritchard vs. Republic case, stating that its consistent rulings in a line of other cases (such as Yrostorza vs. Republic, Lim Lian Hong vs. Republic, and others cited) require strict compliance with the law that enrollment must be made prior to the hearing of the petition. The order of the lower court was affirmed.