G.R. No. L-26244 October 31, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHAN HO LAY TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHAN HO LAY, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On February 19, 1958, Chan Ho Lay filed a verified petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of La Union. After a hearing, the court granted the petition on September 22, 1959, with the decision to become final after a two-year probationary period. On September 26, 1961, after a motion and hearing, the court allowed Chan Ho Lay to take his oath of allegiance, and Certificate of Naturalization No. 10 was issued to him. On February 15, 1966, the Republic of the Philippines filed a motion to cancel his citizenship and certificate of naturalization. The Republic alleged that Chan Ho Lay had previously filed a petition for naturalization (Civil Case No. 10) on April 13, 1950, which was denied because he failed to comply with the legal requirement to enroll his two school-age children (Chan Pia Hoy and Chan Hoy Lu) in a Philippine school where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught. This denial was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 30, 1954 (G.R. No. L-5666). The Republic contended that in his second petition filed in 1958, Chan Ho Lay made untruthful statements and concealed material facts by omitting any mention of these two children and his previous denied petition. Chan Ho Lay opposed, claiming that by the time of his second petition in 1958, the two children were already of age (23 and 22) and, according to his information, had died in China before February 1958, which was why he did not mention them. The lower court denied the Republic’s motion, ruling that no fraud was committed because the children were either deceased or of age and thus would not ipso facto acquire citizenship. The Republic appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in granting naturalization to Chan Ho Lay based on his second application and in not canceling his certificate of naturalization, given his alleged fraudulent concealment of material facts in his petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court. It held that Chan Ho Lay was guilty of serious misconduct through omission in connection with his second petition for naturalization. The Court found that despite knowing that his failure to bring his two children to the Philippines for education was a principal reason for the denial of his first petition, he made no mention of them or of his previously denied petition in his second application. This lack of full disclosure deprived the lower court of pertinent information that would have prompted more careful scrutiny of the second petition. The Court ruled that this demonstrated a lack of the required moral integrity for citizenship applicants. Chan Ho Lay’s claim that the children were dead did not excuse the concealment, as their existence and the prior denial were material facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside and canceled the lower court’s decision of September 22, 1959, its order allowing the oath, the oath of allegiance, and Certificate of Naturalization No. 10 issued to Chan Ho Lay.