Well said Judge PERPECTO, very well said. The next point is that under section 2 of the Naturalization Act, it is imperative that petitioners children could be enrolled during the entire period of residence in the islands required of the applicant. Appellants contention is not well taken. In the present case, petitioner has been residing in the Philippines since 1911, 37 years ago, and the residence required by the section 6 of the Naturalization Law is for a period of 30 years or more. How could petitioner keep his three children enrolled in our schools for 37 years? Why shall a student be kept enrolled in primary and secondary schools for 37 years long? And how could petitioner enroll in the schools his children from the very beginning of his evidence in 1911 when his eldest son, Thomas, was born only on January 10, 1925? The provision of law invoked by the appellant must be interpreted in the sense that the enrollment required by law must be made at any time during the entire period of the residence of the applicant in the Philippines. The drafter of the law could not have intended to create absorb or impossible situations. A sensible reading of text of the law will show that some words are missing in the text, due either to a mere clerical error or to an oversight.
Posted on: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:26:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015