GR L 9712; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9712; April 27, 1957
In the matter of the Petition of ONG HO PING to become a citizen of the Philippines. ONG HO PING, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Ong Ho Ping, a Chinese citizen born in Amoy, China, immigrated to the Philippines on December 7, 1929, and has continuously resided since. He is married to a Filipino-Chinese mestiza and has four children, all born in Manila and baptized Catholic, with two of school age studying at Ateneo de Manila. He owns a lucrative jewelry and watch repair business employing sixteen Filipinos and four Chinese, with a yearly net income of about P20,000. He has presented clearances from various government agencies, pays taxes regularly, and claims good moral character, non-belief in communism, adherence to Filipino customs, and that he is not among the disqualified persons under the Revised Naturalization Law. The Court of First Instance of Manila denied his petition for naturalization on the ground that his knowledge of English and Tagalog was too scanty to satisfy the legal requirement of being able to speak and write them.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Ong Ho Ping possesses sufficient knowledge of English and Tagalog, and a belief in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, to qualify for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and granted the petition for naturalization. The Court held that petitioner’s demonstrated knowledge of English and Tagalog, while not proficient, was sufficient under the law. He answered a question in English and wrote his answer, and also provided a Tagalog translation. His confusion on a complex, philosophical question from the trial court was not indicative of language deficiency. Citing Zuellig vs. Republic, the Court ruled that the law does not require proficiency, only that the applicant can understand and be understood in a principal dialect. Furthermore, the Court found that petitioner’s testimony—including his correct answers on important constitutional provisions, his understanding of democratic government, his rejection of communism, and his declaration that he is not opposed to organized government—sufficiently established his belief in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution.