GR L 4177; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4177, May 29, 1953
In the matter of the petition for Philippine citizenship. YAP CHIN alias JOSE GO TIANSE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
This is an appeal by the Provincial Fiscal of Misamis Occidental from an order of the Court of First Instance granting Yap Chin alias Jose Go Tianse’s application for naturalization. The primary ground for appeal is that the petitioner has a 14-year-old son of school age who is living in China with the appellee’s mother and is not enrolled in any Philippine government-recognized school where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner-appellee is disqualified from naturalization for his failure to enroll his minor child of school age in a government-recognized school as required by the Revised Naturalization Law, and whether this objection can be raised for the first time on appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order and denied the application for naturalization. The Court held that the requirement for an applicant to enroll all minor children of school age in a government-recognized school is mandatory and essential, as children ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenship upon the father’s naturalization and must learn Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals. The fact that the child is in China is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. The Court further ruled that the government is not bound by pleadings in naturalization proceedings, and it is the applicant’s affirmative duty to establish all legal requirements, with the court having the authority to deny the application motu proprio if any requirement is lacking. The objection regarding the child’s enrollment, even if raised for the first time on appeal, is permissible as it affects the applicant’s qualifications. The applicant’s failure to present evidence explaining the impossibility of bringing the child to the Philippines or that it was not through his fault rendered his allegations insufficient. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the applicant’s alleged deficient ability to write a principal Philippine dialect. The denial is without prejudice, with costs against the appellee.