ROBERT CU VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES In the matter of the petition of ROBERT CU to be admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines
DOCTRINE: As to a statute adopted from another country, A rational rule of statutory construction is that a statute adopted from another state or country will be presumed to be adopted with the construction placed upon it by the courts of that state state or country before its adoption. Such Such construction construction is regarded as of great great weight, or at least persuasive, and will generally be followed if found reasonable, and in harmony with justice and public policy, policy, and with with other laws laws of the adopting jurisdiction on the subject. subject. As to the nationality (according to the law when this petition was filed) , Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Naturalization Law (Commonwealth (Commonwealth Act No. 473) 473) provides that that the petition petition for citizenship, citizenship, must state state the following: 1. petitioner's petitioner's qualifications qualifications as enumerated enumerated in the Act, Act, 2. petition must must be signed signed by the applicant applicant in his own own handwriting; and 3. be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of the Act. 4. The petition shall also set forth the names and post office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner petitioner may desire desire to introduce introduce at the hearing hearing of the case."
FACTS: Robert Cu filed a petition for naturalization. During the hearing, he stated that he was a citizen of the Philippines. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal found him to be “a Filipino citizen, both by right of birth and by right of selection," and dismissed the petition for naturalization. It impliedly held that being already already a Philippine Philippine citizen citizen he did not have have to be naturalized. naturalized.
According to his testimony, he is a Filipino born of a Filipina mother. But when his mother died when he was about 5 months old, he was brought to China by his father. When he was 5 years old, he and his father left China and then was given to the care of Doña Mangahas. The counsel for the Government opposed Cu’s claim that he is a Filipino. Cu continued with this testimony: “I consider myself a Filipino citizen on ac count of the fact that my mother is (was) a Filipina and I was born in the Philippines. My only fault was that I failed to file my application to elect Philippine citizenship. That is why I am application to elect Philippine citizenship. That is why I am now asking this Court to make a judgment on that." Consequently, he was asked by the court whether he knew if his parents were legally married but he was unsure thereof.
ISSUE: Is Cu entitled to be admitted to Philippine citizenship under the law at the time of his application?
RULING: No. He is not entitled to be admitted Philippine Citizenship.
Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473) provides that the witnesses must be citizens of the Philippines and "personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act. If petitioner is born in the Philippines, time required is 5 years and if not, 10 years. The witness provided by Cu did not meet these qualifications. Witness Dr. Jose Ku Yeg Keng admitted that his father was a Chinese national and his mother a Filipina but he did not actually elect Philippine citizenship. The other witness, Dr. Pastor Gomez, he testified that "he had known Mr. Cu since liberation, about August, 1945." Dr. Pastor Gomez was eventually withdrawn as witness upon the objection of the counsel for the Government.
In United States vs. Martorana, “a petition not so verified by at least two persons who are citizen is not merely voidable but void." In the case of In re Kornstain, A witness who is incompetent renders an application void. The question of a witness' qualifications in naturalization proceedings is therefore a matter of more than usual importance. The above decisions are not binding upon Philippine Courts, but it is a rational rule of statutory construction that a statute adopted from another state or country will be presumed to be adopted with the construction placed upon it by the courts of that state or country before its adoption. Such construction is regarded as of great weight, or at least persuasive, and will generally be followed if found reasonable, and in harmony with justice and public policy, and with other laws of the adopting jurisdiction on the subject. The Supreme Court finds the United States courts' reasoning to be sound and reasonable and we make it our own.
