Eremes Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, G.R. No.

L-1812, August 27, 1948 FACTS: In August 1941, appellee-petitioner 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. The petition was filed in August 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-petitioners witnesses but did not file any opposition and did not present any evidence to controvert the petition. The CFI granted the 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. He had several stints while in military service before he joined the White Russian Army at Vladivostok and fought against the Bolsheviks until 1922 when the latter force defeated the former. Refusing to join the Bolshevik regime, he 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 his stint in the guerrilla force in 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 underlying principles of the Philippine Constitution, and being a stateless refugee belonging to no State. ISSUES: W/N (1) appellee-petitioners declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen was valid and sufficient basis for his petition for naturalization, (2) appellee-petitioner sufficiently established legal residence in the Philippines and could speak and 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 showing the date, place and manner of his arrival has been issued. While appelleepetitioners declaration was reconstituted, the attached certificate referred to in the declaration was not reconstituted. The SC ruled that the law does not state that the certificate is essential to the validity of the declaration as the only requirement is for the said certificate to be issued. There is the uncontroverted fact of appellee-petitioners 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, appelleepetitioners declaration was valid under law in view of other competent evidence showing the facts sought to be established under the certificate that was not reconstituted. (2) Appellee-petitioner has sufficiently shown legal residence in the Philippines 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. While there may be many standards out there, none was set in the law on the required ability to speak and write any of the principal Philippine languages. Appelleepetitioner got along well with his comrades during his hazardous days in the guerrilla movement thus showing that he satisfied the requirement of the law. There was 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-petitioners 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.