Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23470)
Facts:
- Petition for naturalization filed by Sy Suan
- Heard by the Court of First Instance of Rizal
- Solicitor General opposed the petition
- Lower court found Sy Suan qualified for naturalization
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied the petit...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Failure to state all former places of residence in the petition violates the law and affects the court's jurisdiction.
- The petitioner's failure to register his children under the Alien Registration Act and delayed registration of his son shows a lack of respect for the law and failure to conduct himself properly.
- The petitioner's income is not lucrative enough considering his large family and their edu...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23470)
Facts:
The case involves Sy Suan, the petitioner-appellee, who sought to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, acted as the oppositor-appellant. The petition for naturalization was filed on September 4, 1958, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Sy Suan claimed his current residence was at No. 68-C Arellano St., Malabon, Rizal, and his former residence was at 744 Magdalena Street, Manila. However, during his testimony, he revealed that upon his arrival in the Philippines in 1923, he initially resided with his father on T. Pinpin Street, Manila, and subsequently moved to various locations, including Tetuan Street in 1933 and Platerias Street in Quiapo until 1941.
The lower court found Sy Suan qualified for citizenship, but the Solicitor General appealed, arguing that the court had assumed jurisdiction improperly because Sy Suan had not filed the required declaration of intention to become a citizen and had failed to list all his former residences. Additionally, the Solicitor General contended that Sy Suan did not possess good moral character, had not conducted himself properly, lacked a sincere desire for citizenship, failed to enroll all his children in recognized schools, did not have a lucrative occupation, and that his witnesses were not credible. The lower court's decision was thus challenged on multiple grounds, including the late registra...