G.R. No. L-27580 August 27, 1969
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, movant-appellant, vs. UY PIEK TUY, petitioner-oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

On April 11, 1961, the Court of First Instance of Manila granted Uy Piek Tuy’s petition for naturalization. He took his oath of allegiance and was issued a certificate of naturalization on August 2, 1963. On March 16, 1966, the Solicitor General filed a motion for the cancellation of this certificate on three grounds: (1) Uy Piek Tuy failed to enroll his school-age children in schools where Philippine history, civics, and government were taught during his entire required period of residence; (2) he was not qualified to take the oath due to a violation of a Government-announced policy at the time; and (3) his petition was fatally defective for not attaching his certificate of arrival.
Uy Piek Tuy, born in Amoy, China, arrived in the Philippines on January 21, 1947. His wife and two children (Uy Hoc Siong, born 1950, and Uy Tian Siong, born 1958) resided in Hongkong and only came to the Philippines as “temporary visitors” on October 16, 1960. His eldest son, Uy Hoc Siong, had been of school age since October 10, 1957, but was not enrolled in any Philippine-recognized school until the family’s arrival in 1960, when he was enrolled in the Quiapo Anglo-Chinese School. Furthermore, after their authorized stay expired and extensions were denied by the Commissioner of Immigration, Uy Piek Tuy managed to keep his family in the country through legal maneuvers, including filing a mandamus petition, as detailed in the related case of Vivo v. Cloribel.

ISSUE

Whether the certificate of naturalization of Uy Piek Tuy should be cancelled.

RULING

Yes, the certificate of naturalization is ordered cancelled. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order denying the Government’s petition.
The Court held that Uy Piek Tuy failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 that an applicant must have enrolled his children of school age in schools where Philippine history, civics, and government are taught. His eldest son, of school age since 1957, was only enrolled in a Philippine school in 1960 upon their arrival, and even then in a school with a predominantly Chinese student body, evincing a lack of sincere desire for his children to embrace Filipino customs and ideals. This failure constituted a disqualification under Section 4(f) of the same Act, meaning his certificate was “illegally procured” under Section 18.
Additionally, his act of maneuvering to keep his family in the Philippines as temporary visitors beyond their authorized stay, against the directives of the Commissioner of Immigration, violated a declared government policy. This conduct demonstrated a lack of the good moral character and irreproachable conduct required both before and after naturalization.
The Court also found the third ground meritorious, ruling that the failure to attach the certificate of arrival to the petition was a fatal defect, as it is essential for the investigation of the applicant’s qualifications.
Consequently, the order appealed from was reversed, Uy Piek Tuy’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender it within ten days.