GR L 5098; (March, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5098 March 10, 1953
CERVERLEON T. DY, applicant and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Cerverleon T. Dy, born in 1923 in Agoo, La Union, to Chinese parents, has resided in the Philippines since birth, with visits to China in 1930 and 1948. He is married to a Chinese woman residing in China, earns P2,000 annually from business, and speaks and writes English and Ilocano. He studied in primary school and reached the fourth year of high school. The Court of First Instance of La Union granted his petition for naturalization. The government appealed, arguing the court erred in not declaring Dy disqualified for failing to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen one year before his petition. The government contends he is not exempt from this requirement because (1) he has not completed secondary education, having only reached the fourth year, and (2) he does not have 30 years of residence, being only 26 years old. Dy argues that having “reached the fourth year” is equivalent to having studied the entire secondary course.
ISSUE
Whether or not Cerverleon T. Dy is exempt from filing a declaration of intention, on the ground of having received his primary and secondary education in the Philippines.
RULING
No. The appealed decision is reversed. Dy is not exempt from filing the required declaration of intention. The law requires that an applicant must have “received” primary and secondary education. Merely having reached or been enrolled in the fourth year of high school does not equate to having completed the full secondary course. To be considered as having received secondary education, one must have finished the fourth-year course. Since Dy did not complete his secondary education and has not resided in the Philippines for 30 years (being only 26), he is not exempt under Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law. His petition is denied for non-compliance with this indispensable condition, without prejudice to him filing the required sworn declaration one year before a new petition or completing his fourth-year high school studies. Costs are taxed against the appellee.
(Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Paras, with Justice Bautista Angelo concurring, argues that a tenable construction of Dy’s testimony is that he reached and completed the fourth year, as there is no higher year in secondary course. The omission to clarify if he “finished” the fourth year should not prejudice his petition where he possesses all other qualifications. He would affirm the grant of naturalization.)