Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13045)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition for Naturalization as Filipino Citizen. Hao Su Siong, alias Ramon Cuenco, Petitioner and Appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, Defendant and Appellant, G.R. No. L-13045, July 30, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hao Su Siong (alias Ramon Hao Cuenco) was born in Amoy, China on January 1, 1901. He arrived in Manila in 1918, moved to the province of Leyte in 1919, to Cebu in 1922, and returned to Inopacan, Leyte in 1924 where he continued to reside. In 1925 he went to China, married Ng Chen, and brought her back to the Philippines about six months later. He operated as a merchant in Inopacan and testified his annual income was P1,000.
On May 23, 1956, petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance of Leyte a petition for naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended). He did not file a declaration of intention under Section 5 of the law, claiming exemption under Section 6 on the ground that he had resided continuously in the Philippines for more than thirty years and that he had given primary and secondary education to all his children in Philippine public or government‑recognized private schools.
At the trial petitioner presented testimony about his twelve children—all allegedly born in Inopacan—and their schooling: some had reached or completed high school or college; others were in various elementary grades; two (Corazon and Lourdes) were said to be below school age. Two children (Eulalia and Pedro) attended the Cebu Chinese High School. Petitioner and his witnesses also testified he possessed the other statutory qualifications and no disqualifications.
The Court of First Instance granted the petition for naturalization. The Republic appealed to the Supreme Court. The Government assigned errors challenging (1) the finding that petitioner was exempt from filin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner exempt from filing the declaration of intention required by Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law?
- Did petitioner prove, by competent and satisfactory evidence, that he possessed the statutory qualifications (including the education and enrollment of his minor children) and that none of the disqualifications applied?
- Should the lower court's decree granting petitio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)