G.R. No. L-5835; February 8, 1957
In the matter of the petition of CARMEN GO DE SERO, to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines. CARMEN GO DE SERO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Carmen Go de Sero, born on August 25, 1899, in Dagupan, Pangasinan, to a Chinese father and a mestiza mother, filed a petition for naturalization on August 26, 1948. After her parents’ death, she lived in Manila for about twenty years, attending public schools up to the third grade. In 1924, she married Yu Engkiat Sero, a Chinese (now deceased), with whom she had two daughters: Valentina, a 24-year-old pharmacist, and Cecilia, a 22-year-old college student. After marriage, she resided in Cotabato from around 1925 until the time of the petition, never having left the Philippines. Upon her husband’s death, she was appointed administratrix of his estate, which included commercial and residential lots generating a monthly rental income of about P415. The trial court found her to be of good moral character, a Christian and devout Catholic, opposed to communism, socially mixing with Filipinos, contributing to civic and charitable organizations, free from contagious or incurable diseases, and able to speak English, Chavacano, Tagalog, and Moro dialects. However, during cross-examination, she answered in the negative when asked about her ability to write in any of the principal dialects of the country.

ISSUE

Whether Carmen Go de Sero possesses the qualification under the naturalization law to write in a principal dialect of the Philippines, given her admission that she could not write in any dialect but demonstrated literacy in English.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the petition for naturalization. The Court held that while the applicant explicitly stated she could not write in any dialect, her ability to write in English, coupled with her long residence in areas where Tagalog, Chavacano, and Moro are spoken, allows for a reasonable inference that she can also write in those dialects. The Court applied judicial notice and precedents (Kookooritchkin vs. Solicitor General, Tan vs. Republic, Lao Chin Kieng vs. Republic, Wu Siock Boon vs. Republic, and Nabih Awad vs. Republic) establishing that since the Philippine dialects use the same alphabet as English and are phonetic, a person literate in English who speaks a dialect can be deemed capable of writing it. The Court emphasized her literacy, administrative responsibilities, support for her daughters’ education, and her overall qualifications, concluding she met the statutory requirement.