GR L 4144; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953
George S. Corbet, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On September 7, 1948, George S. Corbet filed an application for naturalization. He was born on May 26, 1891, in St. Petersburg, Russia, and was single at the time of filing. He claimed the benefits of section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 due to his service in the Philippine Army from September 13, 1943, to October 15, 1945. Attached to his application were affidavits from two Filipino citizens who knew him since 1943, and from two members of the Russian Siberian Flotilla, which arrived in the Philippines in January 1923, confirming his arrival with that group. The applicant had filed a declaration of intention in 1939. While his application was pending, he married Angela Quirante, a Filipino woman, on March 27, 1949, and subsequently amended his application on October 6, 1949, to state this fact. The evidence showed he was a Russian subject who fled to the Philippines in 1923 after refusing to join the Bolsheviks and had lived continuously in the country since, including service as a first lieutenant in the Philippine Army during the war. The Court of First Instance of Lanao initially denied the petition on grounds related to reciprocity with Russia and renunciation of nationality but later granted it upon reconsideration. The Government appealed.
ISSUE
The primary issues were whether the petition was defective due to insufficient affidavits regarding residency, whether the applicant qualified for a reduced residency requirement, and whether his ability to speak Chavacano satisfied the language requirement of the Naturalization Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decree granting naturalization. It held that the applicant was entitled to a reduced continuous residency requirement of five years instead of ten under section 3 of the Naturalization Act, due to his service in the Philippine Army and his marriage to a Filipino woman, with no showing the marriage was in bad faith. The Court also ruled that speaking and writing Chavacano sufficiently complied with the requirement to know a principal Philippine language, as established in a prior case. The contention regarding defective affidavits was deemed without merit. The decree was affirmed without costs.