G.R. No. 155732 - Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez

Sy Kiap, also known as Sy Kau Kiap, was born on January 18, 1895 in Chinkang, Amoy, China.
He arrived in the Philippines aboard the SS "Taysang" in 1909.
He is married to Go Seng and together they have eight children, all born in Chinkang, Amoy, China.

In 1948, Sy Kiap’s wife and two of his children, namely Sy Nui and Sy Gui Chuan, arrived in the Philippines.
The remaining children – four in the age bracket and two minor children – continued to reside in China and had never been to the Philippines.

Sy Kiap filed an application for naturalization, and his qualifications were testified to by himself and his witnesses, though these details were not restated in depth by the court.
The decree in question granted him citizenship by naturalization.

The erroneous holding that the applicant was exempt from making a declaration of his intention to become a citizen as required by Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535 and Republic Act No. 530).
The erroneous finding that Sy Kiap possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law for acquiring citizenship by naturalization.

The controversy centered on the proper application of the enrollment requirement: the enrollment of minor children in public or private schools approved by the Government was interpreted to apply only to those minor children residing in the Philippines.
Enrollment, as mandated since May 26, 1940 by C.A. No. 535, was intended to serve as evidence of the applicant’s bona fide intention to become a citizen by ensuring familiarity with Philippine institutions and the duties of citizenship.

The applicant claimed that he wished to bring his children to the Philippines, yet his decision to keep them in China was attributed to the cheaper cost of living there.
His testimony was contradictory since his substantial annual income both before and after the Pacific War would have enabled him to bring the children to the Philippines.
His assertion of being prevented from bringing his children by the Immigration Law (C.A. No. 613) conflicted with the earlier testimony about economic reasons.
The Immigration Law (C.A. No. 613), which took effect on August 26, 1940, imposed quotas on immigrants, although before its implementation, there had been no restrictions on the entry of minor children of Chinese merchants.

The applicant’s failure to comply with Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, concerning the filing of a declaration of intention to become a citizen, was pivotal.
As a result, he did not come under the exemption provided by Section 6 of the same Act (as amended by C.A. No. 535), which would have otherwise waived the requirement of the declaration if his minor children resided and were enrolled in Philippine schools.

Whether the applicant’s failure to enroll all his minor children in Philippine government-approved schools invalidated the exemption from the declaration of intention as required by Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (as amended).
Whether the discrepancies in the applicant’s testimony regarding his intent to bring his children to the Philippines versus his actual conduct—keeping them in China for economic reasons—undermined his bona fide intention to become a citizen.
Whether the applicant satisfied all the qualifications and avoided the disqualifications for citizenship by naturalization, particularly in light of the statutory requirements on residence and integration into Philippine society.