VILLAMOR Kookooritchkin v SolGen

Eremes Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, G.R. No. L-1812, August 27, 1948 FACTS: In August 1941, appellee-petit appellee-petitioner ioner Kookooritchkin Kookooritchkin filed with the CFI of Camarines Sur a petition for naturalization, supported by (a) the affidavits of ex-Judge Jaime M. Reyes and Dr. Salvador Mariano, residents of Camarines Sur, (b) his declaration of intention which was sworn in July 1940, and (c) notice of hearing. hearing. The petition petition was filed in August 1941 1941 but was not heard until August 28 and Sept. 30, 1947 when appellee-petitioner presented his evidence, since the province was invaded by the Japanese forces during WWI and the case records had to be reconstituted after being destroyed during the war. Appellant SolGen cross-examined appellee-petitioner’s witnesses but did not file any opposition and did not present any any evidence to controvert controvert the petition. petition. The CFI granted granted the petition petition for  naturalization, finding that appellee-petitioner was a native-born Russian who grew up as a citizen of and was part of the military of the defunct Imperial Russian Government under  the Czars. Czars. He had several several stints stints while while in milita military ry service service before he joined joined the White Russian Army at Vladivostok and fought against the Bolsheviks until 1922 when the latter  force force defeated defeated the former. former. Refusin Refusing g to join join the Bolshev Bolshevik ik regime, regime, he fled fled by sea to Shanghai, and eventually went to Manila as part of the group of White Russians under   Admiral Stark in March 1923. He finally permanently resided in Iriga, Camarines Sur  except during during his stint in the the guerrilla guerrilla force in Caramoan Caramoan from 1942 to July 1945. The lower court also made findings of the establishment of his family, employment, social life, his ability to speak and write English and Bicol, his good moral character, adherence to the unde underl rlyi ying ng prin princi cipl ples es of the the Phil Philip ippi pine ne Cons Consti titu tuti tion, on, and and bein being g a stat statele eless ss refug refugee ee belonging to no State. ISSUES: W/N (1) appellee-petitioner’s declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen was valid and sufficient basis for his petition for naturalization, (2) appellee-petitioner sufficiently establ establishe ished d legal legal reside residence nce in the Philippi Philippines nes and could could speak speak and write write any of the principal Philippine languages, and (3) appellee-petitioner was stateless refugee. HELD: (1) Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law applies and provides that “[n]o declaration shall be valid until entry for permanent residence has been established and a certificate showin showing g the date, date, place and manner manner of his arrival arrival has been been issued issued.” .” While While appellee appellee-petiti petitione oner’s r’s declar declarati ation on was reconst reconstitu ituted ted,, the attach attached ed certifi certificat cate e referre referred d to in the declar declarati ation on was not reconst reconstitu ituted ted.. The SC ruled that the law does not state state that the certificate is essential to the validity of the declaration as the only requirement is for the said certificat certificate e to be issued. There is the uncontroverte uncontroverted d fact of appellee-peti appellee-petitioner tioner’s ’s peaceful and continuous residence in the Philippines for 25 years and statement in his declaration that a certificate had been attached to the said declaration. Hence, appelleepetitioner’ petitioner’s s declaration declaration was valid under law in view of other competent competent evidence showing the facts sought to be established under the certificate that was not reconstituted. (2) Appell Appelleeee-pet petiti itione onerr has suffic sufficien iently tly shown shown legal legal residenc residence e in the Philip Philippin pines es for a continuous period of not less than 10 years as required by Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law. In addition, appellee-petitioner had good command of both English and Bicol. Bicol. While While there may be many standard standards s out there, none none was set in the law on the required required ability to speak and write write any of the principal Philippin Philippine e languages. languages. AppelleeAppelleepetitioner got along well with his comrades during his hazardous days in the guerrilla moveme movement nt thus showing showing that he satisf satisfied ied the requirem requirement ent of the law. There There was also also circumstantial evidence that appellee-petitioner also ought to know how to write Bicol,

which uses the same alphabet used in English and so widely used in the Philippines. Given his good command of English as shown in his testimony, appellee-petitioner could easily make use of the same alphabet in the place where he had been residing for 25 years. (3) Appellant SolGen asserted that appellee-petitioner failed to show that he lost his citizenship under the laws of Russia and that Russia granted to Filipinos the same right to be naturalized citizens. However, the SC still found that lower court did not err in finding appellee-petitioner as a stateless refugee. Appellee-petitioner’s testimony that he is not a Russian citizen and that he has no citizenship is uncontroverted. There is also the wellknown ruthlessness of modern dictatorships giving rise to a great number of stateless refugees or displaced persons, without country or flag. The tyrannical intolerance of  dictatorships to opposition translates into beastly oppression, concentration camps and bloody purges, such that it is only natural that those who flee to other countries to escape such a situation, such as appellee-petitioner, lose all bonds of attachments to their former  fatherlands.