GR L 5663; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5663 April 30, 1954
Pedro Tan, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Pedro Tan filed a petition for naturalization on March 18, 1950, in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. His petition, birth certificate, and alien certificate of registration indicated he was born on August 3, 1928, in Jimenez, Misamis Occidental. The petition contained no allegation, and no evidence was presented, that he had filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen as required by law. Tan admitted he had not filed such a declaration. He claimed exemption from this requirement because he was born in the Philippines and had received his primary and secondary education in government-recognized schools. However, the record showed that at the time of filing his amended application on September 3, 1951, he was only a third-year high school student and had not completed his secondary education.
ISSUE
Whether Pedro Tan is exempt from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention to become a citizen, given that he was born in the Philippines and had received primary and part of his secondary education in recognized schools, but had not completed secondary education.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the application. The Court held that the failure to file the required declaration of intention is fatal to a naturalization petition. Tan was not exempt from this requirement. Citing the case of Florentino Uy Boco vs. Republic of the Philippines, the Court ruled that to qualify for the exemption, an applicant must have completed secondary education. Since Tan had only received part of his secondary instruction and was still a third-year high school student, he did not have a full secondary education and therefore was not exempt. The Court emphasized that the one-year period following the declaration of intention is crucial for the State to investigate an applicant’s qualifications, and without it, the State is deprived of a sufficient opportunity to gather evidence. Consequently, the application was dismissed.