Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27580)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Uy Piek Tuy, G.R. No. L-27580, August 27, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.The movant-appellant Republic of the Philippines (through the Solicitor General) sought review of an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila that had denied the Government’s motion to cancel the certificate of naturalization of respondent-appellee Uy Piek Tuy. The CFI originally granted Uy’s petition for naturalization on April 11, 1961. No appeal having apparently been taken, Uy moved on April 25, 1963 to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance; that motion was granted June 26, 1963, Uy took the oath on August 2, 1963, and the certificate of naturalization was issued the same date.
On March 16, 1966 the Solicitor General moved in the CFI to cancel Uy’s certificate on three grounds: (1) Uy failed to meet the sixth requirement of Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 by not enrolling his school-age child in a Philippine school where Philippine history, civics and government were taught during the requisite period of residence; (2) Uy had acted contrary to an announced policy of the Philippine Government (violating Republic Act No. 530) before taking his oath and at the time the certificate was issued; and (3) Uy’s petition for naturalization was fatally defective because it lacked the statutorily required certificate of arrival. The CFI denied the motion to cancel, prompting the Government to bring the case to the Supreme Court by record on appeal.
The factual background shows Uy was born in Amoy, China (Oct. 13, 1926), entered the Philippines Jan. 21, 1947, and married in 1949; his wife and two children resided in Hong Kong and were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors on October 16, 1960. Uy’s eldest child had been of school age since October 10, 1957 but was not enrolled in any Philippine government‑recognized school during the period relevant to Uy’s petition; when finally enrolled in the 1960–1961 school year the child attended the Quiapo Anglo‑Chinese School, a school with a predominance of Chinese pupils. Administrative and judicial controversies about extensions of stay followed: Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice had purportedly authorized a change in status and extension of the family’s stay to April 11, 1963, but the Commissioner of Immigration refused recognition beyond June 16, 1962 and denied further extensions; the family sought court relief and obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction in July 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Uy fail to meet the statutory assimilation requirement (Section 2) — specifically, the obligation to have his school‑age child enrolled in a Philippine school teaching Philippine history, civics and government — thereby falling within the disqualification of Section 4(f) of Commonwealth Act No. 473?
- Did Uy’s conduct in retaining his wife and children in the Philippines contrary to immigration policy and announced government policy, in violation of Republic Act No. 530, render his naturalization unlawful?
- Was Uy’s petition for naturalization fatally defective for failure to attach the certificate of arrival as required by Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 4...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)