Chua Pieng v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Chua Pieng, born in China in 1909, sought to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. He arrived in the Philippines in 1919 and has resided there continuously, except for brief visits to China. He speaks Tagalog and English, owns a perfumery business valued at P200,000, and possesses real estate in Quezon City. He was married twice, first to Lee Siok Cheng, with whom he had six children, and then to Go Ay Ty, with whom he has no children. He declared he has no criminal record involving moral turpitude, no contagious diseases, and is not a communist or polygamist. He stated his belief in the Philippine Constitution and social interaction with Filipinos. 2. Procedural History: Chua Pieng filed his petition for naturalization on March 29, 1949. The Court of First Instance of Rizal granted his petition. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The appeal was based on two main contentions: first, that Chua Pieng failed to enroll all his minor children of school age in Philippine public or recognized private schools, and second, that he did not file a declaration of intention to become a citizen as required by law prior to his application. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, as the oppositor-appellant, argues that Chua Pieng cannot be naturalized because he did not enroll his children, Chua Siu Siu and Nelson Chua, who were in China, in Philippine schools. The appellant also contends that Chua Pieng failed to file a declaration of intention as mandated by Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as he did not fall under the exemptions provided in Section 6. The Supreme Court considered the argument that the children's absence in China was due to the war and transportation difficulties, but found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting the children's ages and the period after the war when travel was possible. The Court also noted that two of his children were enrolled in an exclusive Chinese school in Manila. The petition for a new trial, based on the subsequent death of the two children in China, was denied as it did not excuse the prior non-compliance with the law.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of enrolling his minor children of school age in recognized Philippine schools. Whether the petitioner failed to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines prior to filing his application, as required by law.
Ruling
The decree granting the petition for naturalization is reversed, and the petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of enrolling minor children: The Court found that Chua Pieng failed to satisfactorily prove that he had always desired to enroll all his children in public or private schools in the Philippines. Two of his children, Chua Siu Siu and Nelson Chua, were in China for their studies since 1942 and 1948, respectively. The Court noted that the petitioner disclosed the existence and stay of these two children in China with reluctance and without a plausible reason. The explanation that it was impossible to bring them back due to the war in China was not sufficiently supported by evidence, especially considering the period after Japan's surrender in 1945 and before China's occupation by the Communists. Furthermore, the petitioner enrolled two of his children in the Chinese Republican School in Manila, an exclusive Chinese school, which does not satisfy the requirement of enrollment in schools where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught. The Court reiterated the ruling in Hao Lian Chu vs. Republic of the Philippines and Tan Hi vs. Republic of the Philippines, emphasizing the importance of minor children learning Philippine history, government, and civics, as they would ipso facto acquire the privilege of Philippine citizenship upon their father's naturalization. The subsequent death of the two children could not serve as an excuse for non-compliance with the law while they were alive. On the issue of filing a declaration of intention: The Court found that Chua Pieng failed to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. He did not fall within the exemptions provided by Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which include those born in the Philippines who received primary and secondary education in recognized schools, or those who resided continuously for thirty years or more. The requirement for those exempt also includes having given primary and secondary education to all their children in public or recognized private schools not limited to any race or nationality. Since Chua Pieng did not meet these exemptions and did not file the declaration of intention, his application was defective on this ground as well.
Main Doctrine
Failure to enroll minor children of school age in recognized Philippine schools, and failure to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen (when not exempt) are grounds for denial of a naturalization petition.