G.R. No. L-21198 January 22, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LIM CHO KUAN KNOWN ALSO AS MARIANO LIM TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM CHO KUAN alias MARIANO LIM, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Lim Cho Kuan alias Mariano Lim, born in the Philippines on December 23, 1936 to Chinese parents, filed a petition for naturalization on November 7, 1960. He claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines and completed his elementary (1953) and secondary (1957) education at the Philippine Chinese High School and Lyceum of the Philippines, respectively, schools he claimed were recognized by the government. His petition did not contain an allegation that he is “of good moral character,” but instead alleged in paragraph 12 that he “conducted [himself] in a proper and irreproachable manner… in [his] relations with the constituted authorities as well as with the community.” The Court of First Instance of Manila granted his petition on February 8, 1962. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Lim Cho Kuan was validly exempted from filing a declaration of intention.
2. Whether the failure to allege in the petition that the applicant is “of good moral character” is fatal to the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. On the exemption from filing a declaration of intention: The Court ruled that Lim Cho Kuan failed to prove his exemption. Under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, for an applicant born in the Philippines to be exempt, he must have received his primary and secondary education in public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The records contained no evidence proving that the Philippine Chinese High School, where he finished elementary education, was not limited to any race or nationality. This fact cannot be presumed merely from the school’s government recognition and must be affirmatively proven by the applicant. This deficiency is fatal to his claim for exemption. Since the filing of a declaration of intention is mandatory unless exemption is proven, the petition must be denied for non-compliance.
2. On the failure to allege “good moral character”: The Court held that the petition’s deficiency on this point is likewise fatal. Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law states the qualifications separately: (1) the applicant must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; and (2) he must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his residence. The first part refers to personal quality and belief, while the second refers to public and social conduct. They are distinct requirements, as a person’s public conduct may be irreproachable while his private moral character may be objectionable. Therefore, “good moral character” and “proper and irreproachable conduct” must be alleged and proved separately. The allegation in paragraph 12 of the petition only pertained to the second requirement and did not encompass an allegation of good moral character.
The provisions of the Revised Naturalization Law are strictly construed. Non-compliance with its requirements, as in this case, mandates the denial of the application.