Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18516)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18516)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition of Yap Chun Alias Jose Go Tianse to Be Admitted a Citizen of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-18516, January 30, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Yap Chun alias Jose Go Tianse; the opposing party is the Republic of the Philippines (the Government), which acted as oppositor and appellant. The application concerns petitioner’s repeated efforts (three separate petitions) to secure Philippine naturalization and the Government’s repeated appeals contesting his eligibility.
Chronology: Petitioner first applied for naturalization in 1949. The Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental (Judge Patricio Ceniza) granted the petition on July 27, 1950. The Government appealed, and this Court in G.R. No. L-4177 reversed and denied the petition because petitioner had a child of school age in China who had not been enrolled in Philippine schools as required by law.
In 1953 petitioner filed a second application; the same trial court again admitted him to citizenship. The Government appealed, and in G.R. No. L-8642 this Court (decision dated January 30, 1956) again reversed and ordered dismissal, finding that petitioner had had over ten years to bring his son, Go Li Pen, to the Philippines for schooling before relations with mainland China were cut off, yet he failed to do so.
Petitioner applied a third time, asserting that his son had since attained majority and that, because he was married to a Filipina, the residence requirement was reduced to five years — which he claimed he exceeded. The Court of First Instance (Judge Ceniza) again granted naturalization over the Government’s objections. The Government appealed the latest judgment to the Supreme Court; the present decision is the Court’s review of that appeal.
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in admitting petitioner to Philippine citizenship despite this Court’s prior rulings finding disqualification based on petitioner’s failure to enroll his child in Philippine schools?
- Can the subsequent attainment of majority by the child or petitioner’s marriage (and the attendant shorter residence period) cure the prior disqualification and sustain petitioner’s present naturalization application?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)