TOPIC: Rules of Construction for Specific Laws- Naturalization Laws

[G.R. No. L-12408. December 28, 1959.]

LEE CHO alias SEM LEE, petitioner-appellee, vs . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-
appellant.

FACTS:

This is a petition for naturalization filed by Lee Cho before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. On
August 30, 1956, the Court rendered Decision finding petitioner qualified to be a Filipino
citizen. However, on October 2, 1957, the government filed motion for new trial on the ground
that a newly discovered evidence which if presented, the Court may render an adverse
decision. However, after re-hearing, the Court rendered decision reaffirming previous decision
where the government interposed the present appeal.

Petitioner was born in Amoy, China of Chinese parents. He came to the Philippines in February
1921 and continuously resided in Cebu since then. He was issued the corresponding
alien certificate of residence and registration. He speaks and writes English and the Cebu dialect.
He married Sy Siok Bin with whom he had 13 children, all born in Cebu City. All these children
were issued alien certificates except for William who is not of school age, Lourdes who married
a naturalized Filipino citizen and Angelita who rendered only grade five.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Naturalization Law to
become a Filipino citizen.

HELD:
Yes. Despite claims that petitioner has resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty years or
more and has given primary and secondary education to all his children in private schools
recognized by the Government, petitioner Lee Cho failed to give such education to his daughters
Lourdes Lee who got married but continued secondary education in a Chinese school and
Angelita Lee who reached fifth grade only without explanation why no secondary education was
afforded to her where the teaching of the subjects Philippine Civics, Philippine History and
Philippine Government is taught embracing Philippine citizenship. As such, petitioner should
have not tolerated such deviation from the educational requirement of the law. Decision
reversed. Costs against the petitioner.
TOPIC: Rules of Construction for Specific Laws- Expropriation Laws

[G.R. No. 14355. October 31, 1919.]

THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellant, vs . CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA ET AL.,
defendants-appellees.

FACTS:

The City of Manila, plaintiff herein, prayed for the expropriation of a portion private cemetery
for the conversion into an extension of Rizal Avenue. Plaintiff claims that it is necessary that such
public improvement be made in the said portion of the private cemetery and that the said lands
are within their jurisdiction.

Defendants herein answered that the said expropriation was not necessary because other routes
were available. They further claimed that the expropriation of the cemetery would create
irreparable loss and injury to them and to all those persons owing and interested in the graves
and monuments that would have to be destroyed.

The lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary on the particular-strip
of land in question. Plaintiff herein assailed that they have the right to exercise the power of
eminent domain and that the courts have no right to inquire and determine the necessity of the
expropriation. Thus, the same filed an appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the courts may inquire into, and hear proof of the necessity of the expropriation.

HELD:

The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the actual reasonable
necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law. The moment the municipal
corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the
conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a
municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of
the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a
particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question that the
courts have the right to inquire to.