Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Lim Cho Kuan vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Hann Faye Babael
    - The petitioner Lim Cho Kuan applied for citizenship through naturalization but did not file a declaration of intention or prove that his elementary school was not limited to any particular race or nationality, as required. - Filing a declaration of intention is mandatory under the law unless an exemption applies, which was not proven. - The petition also failed to separately allege that the applicant was of good moral character, as required by the naturalization law. - The Supreme Court therefore denied the petition for naturalization due to failure to meet statutory requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lim Cho Kuan vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Hann Faye Babael
    21 views2 pages
    - The petitioner Lim Cho Kuan applied for citizenship through naturalization but did not file a declaration of intention or prove that his elementary school was not limited to any particular race or nationality, as required. - Filing a declaration of intention is mandatory under the law unless an exemption applies, which was not proven. - The petition also failed to separately allege that the applicant was of good moral character, as required by the naturalization law. - The Supreme Court therefore denied the petition for naturalization due to failure to meet statutory requirements.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The petitioner Lim Cho Kuan applied for citizenship through naturalization but did not file a declaration of intention or prove that his elementary school was not limited to any particular race or nationality, as required. - Filing a declaration of intention is mandatory under the law unless an exemption applies, which was not proven. - The petition also failed to separately allege that the applicant was of good moral character, as required by the naturalization law. - The Supreme Court therefore denied the petition for naturalization due to failure to meet statutory requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    21 views2 pages

    Lim Cho Kuan vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Hann Faye Babael
    - The petitioner Lim Cho Kuan applied for citizenship through naturalization but did not file a declaration of intention or prove that his elementary school was not limited to any particular race or nationality, as required. - Filing a declaration of intention is mandatory under the law unless an exemption applies, which was not proven. - The petition also failed to separately allege that the applicant was of good moral character, as required by the naturalization law. - The Supreme Court therefore denied the petition for naturalization due to failure to meet statutory requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    [G.R. No. L-21198. January 22, 1966.

    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LIM CHO KUAN KNOWN ALSO MARIANO LIM, TO BE ADMITTED A
    CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM CHO KUAN alias MARIANO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

    Solicitor General for the oppositor and Appellant.

    J. A. Uy for the petitioner and appellee.

    SYLLABUS

    1. NATURALIZATION; EXEMPTION FROM FILING OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A FILIPINO


    CITIZEN; REQUISITES. — For an applicant born in the Philippines to be exempt from filing a declaration of
    intention, he should have received his primary and secondary education in public schools or those
    recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality (Sec. 6, Revised Naturalization
    Law). That the school where applicant finished his elementary education is not limited to any race or
    nationality must be proved by him and cannot be presumed from the fact that the school is recognized by
    the Government. The deficiency is fatal to his claim for exemption.

    2. ID.; FILING OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION MANDATORY. — The filing of a declaration of intention is


    mandatory and can only be dispensed with if the applicant is exempt therefrom. (Tan v. Republic 89 Phil.
    624). This requirement not haying been complied with, the petition for naturalization has to be denied.

    3. ID.; GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND PROPER AND IRREPROACHABLE CONDUCT MUST BE PROVED
    SEPARATELY. — Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires (1) that the applicant must be of
    good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; and (2) he must
    have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence
    in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which
    he is living. The first part speaks of the personal quality and belief of the applicant; whereas, the second
    part speaks of his public and social conduct. Stated otherwise, a person’s conduct in relation to the
    constituted government and the community at large may be irreproachable but his private life or dealings
    with a particular individual may be such as to render his moral character objectionable. For this reason,
    the law mentions the aforesaid requisites separately. It follows that good moral character and proper and
    irreproachable conduct should be alleged and proved separately.

    DECISION

    BENGZON, J. P., J.:

    Not satisfied with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, rendered February 8, 1962,
    granting the petition for naturalization filed by Lim Cho Kuan alias Mariano Lim, the Solicitor General has
    appealed.

    Lim Cho Kuan was born in the Philippines on December 23, 1936 of Chinese parents. He completed his
    elementary education in 1953 at the Philippine Chinese High School and secondary education in 1957 at
    the Lyceum of the Philippines.

    On November 7, 1960 he filed a petition for naturalization claiming therein exemption from the filing of a
    declaration of intention on the ground that he was born in the Philippines and completed his elementary
    and secondary education in schools "duly recognized by the Republic of the Philippines." The petition did
    not alleged that applicant is "of good moral character."

    In the hearing of the petition for naturalization no evidence was presented to prove that the Philippine
    Chinese High School is not limited to any race or nationality.

    The Solicitor General, therefore, raises the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) Is Lim Cho Kuan exempted from filing a declaration of intention?

    (2) Is failure to allege in the petition for naturalization that applicant is of good moral character fatal?
    Applicant did not file the declaration of intention required in Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law
    on the ground, as stated, that he is exempt from filing the same. For an applicant born in the Philippines
    to be exempt from filing a declaration of intention, he should have received his primary and secondary
    education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
    nationality (Sec. 6, Revised Naturalization Law).

    The records of this case bear no evidence showing that the Philippine Chinese High School where Lim Cho
    Kuan finished his elementary education is not limited to any race or nationality. Such point must be
    proved by applicant and cannot be presumed from the fact that the school is recognized by the
    Government. The deficiency is fatal to his claim for exemption.

    The filing of a declaration of intention is mandatory and can only be dispensed with if the applicant is
    exempt therefrom. 1 This requirement not having been complied with, the petition for naturalization has
    to be denied.

    Appellant further contends that the petition for naturalization should not have been granted on the
    ground that it did not allege that Lim Cho Kuan is a person of good moral character. On the other hand,
    applicant argues that the same is necessarily included in the following allegation in paragraph 12 of his
    Petition. "I have conducted myself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of my
    residence in the Philippines in my relations with the constituted authorities as well as with the community
    in which I am living."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides:

    "SEC. 2. Qualifications. — Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications
    may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:

    x x x

    "Third. He must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine
    Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
    period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with
    the community in which he is living."

    The above-quoted provision contains two part: (1) That the applicant must be of good moral character
    and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; and (2) he must have conducted
    himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines
    in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. The
    first part speaks of the personal quality and belief of the applicant; whereas, the second part speaks of his
    public and social conduct. Stated otherwise, a person’s conduct in relation to the constituted government
    and the community at large may be irreproachable but his private life or dealings with a particular
    individual may be such as to render his moral character objectionable. For this reason, the Law mentions
    the aforesaid requisites separately and even puts a comma between them. It follows that good moral
    character and proper and irreproachable conduct should be alleged and proved separately. Otherwise,
    the Legislature would have omitted the phrases "he must be of good moral character . . ." if the same is
    necessarily included in the phrase "must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
    during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government
    as well as the community in which he is living."

    Provisions of the Revised Naturalization Law are strictly construed and non-compliance therewith, as in
    this case calls for denial of the application for naturalization. 2

    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. Petition for naturalization denied, with costs
    against petitioner. So ordered.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

    Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.

    You might also like