EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-21138. November 27, 1965.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROBERTO TING TONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ROBERTO TING TONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Montilla & Kalambakal for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE MUST PRECEDE THE HEARING OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION, PRITCHARD RULING OVERRULED. — The argument that the enrollment of petitioner’s children in schools where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the curriculum can be done any time during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines is untenable because it is contrary, not only to the explicit tenor of par. 6, Section 2 of the Naturalization Law pursuant to which enrollment of petitioner’s children in said school must take place "prior to the hearing" of the petition for naturalization, not subsequent thereto, but also, to the subsequent rulings on the matter.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
A decision having been rendered on November 8, 1960 granting his petition for naturalization, Roberto Ting Tong filed, on November 19, 1962, a motion praying that, after due hearing, he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as citizen of the Philippines. After said hearing the Court of First Instance of Manila issued on February 1, 1963, an order refusing to allow petitioner to take said oath. A reconsideration of this order having been denied, petitioner interposed the present appeal.
The order appealed from is based upon the fact that, when petitioner initiated these proceedings, on December 29, 1959, he had, among others, a ten-year old son, named Ting Chua Lu, who was not enrolled in any public or private school in the Philippines, for said child was then residing in Hongkong and did not come to the Philippines until May 24, 1960. In other words, petitioner lacks the qualification prescribed in paragraph 6 of Sec. 2 of the Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, namely, that "he must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the office of Private Education of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of the petitioner prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner assails the order appealed from upon the ground that in Pritchard v. Republic, (81 Phil. 244) this legal provision was interpreted to mean that the enrollment therein required "must be made any time during the entire period of the residence required of the applicant for Philippine citizenship", and that, soon after his arrival in the Philippines and before the issuance of the order appealed from, Ting Chuan Lu was enrolled in one of the schools above referred to. This contention is untenable, for it is contrary, not only to the explicit tenor of said par. 6 of Sec. 2 of the Naturalization Law, pursuant to which the enrollment in such school must take place "prior to the hearing" of the petition for naturalization, not subsequently thereto, as in the case of Ting Chua Lu, but, also, to our rulings in Yrostarza v. Republic, L-1394 (May 27, 1949); Lim Lian Hong v. Republic, L-3575 (December 26, 1950); Tan Hi v. Republic, L-3354 (January 25, 1951); Ang Yee Koe Sangkee v. Republic, L-3863 (December 27, 1951); Bangon Du v. Republic, L-3683 (January 28, 1953); Yee Bo Maure v. Republic, L-3354 (January 25, 1951); Ang Yee Koe v. Republic, L-4353 (April 20, 1953); Chua v. Republic, L-6269 (March 30, 1954); and Dy Chan Tiao v. Republic, L-6430 (August 31, 1954), which must prevail over the Pritchard case, insofar as inconsistent therewith.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
The order appealed from is based upon the fact that, when petitioner initiated these proceedings, on December 29, 1959, he had, among others, a ten-year old son, named Ting Chua Lu, who was not enrolled in any public or private school in the Philippines, for said child was then residing in Hongkong and did not come to the Philippines until May 24, 1960. In other words, petitioner lacks the qualification prescribed in paragraph 6 of Sec. 2 of the Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, namely, that "he must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the office of Private Education of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of the petitioner prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner assails the order appealed from upon the ground that in Pritchard v. Republic, (81 Phil. 244) this legal provision was interpreted to mean that the enrollment therein required "must be made any time during the entire period of the residence required of the applicant for Philippine citizenship", and that, soon after his arrival in the Philippines and before the issuance of the order appealed from, Ting Chuan Lu was enrolled in one of the schools above referred to. This contention is untenable, for it is contrary, not only to the explicit tenor of said par. 6 of Sec. 2 of the Naturalization Law, pursuant to which the enrollment in such school must take place "prior to the hearing" of the petition for naturalization, not subsequently thereto, as in the case of Ting Chua Lu, but, also, to our rulings in Yrostarza v. Republic, L-1394 (May 27, 1949); Lim Lian Hong v. Republic, L-3575 (December 26, 1950); Tan Hi v. Republic, L-3354 (January 25, 1951); Ang Yee Koe Sangkee v. Republic, L-3863 (December 27, 1951); Bangon Du v. Republic, L-3683 (January 28, 1953); Yee Bo Maure v. Republic, L-3354 (January 25, 1951); Ang Yee Koe v. Republic, L-4353 (April 20, 1953); Chua v. Republic, L-6269 (March 30, 1954); and Dy Chan Tiao v. Republic, L-6430 (August 31, 1954), which must prevail over the Pritchard case, insofar as inconsistent therewith.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
