Digest Kookooritchkin V

Kookooritchkin v.
Solicitor General
G.R. No. L-1812
Facts:
In August, 1941, Eremes Kookooritchkin (appellee) filed with the lower court a petition for
naturalization, accompanied with supporting affidavits of two citizens, copy of a declaration
of intention sworn in July, 1940, and proper notice of the hearing. The petition was finally set
for hearing on December 18, 1941, but it was held on that date because the province was
invaded by the Japanese forces on December 14, and the case remained pending until the
records were destroyed during the military operations for liberation in March, 1945. The case
was declared reconstituted on May 10, 1947, and the evidence was presented on August 28
and September 30, 1947. On the same day resolution was issued granting the petition.
The lower court made the findings, among others that:

- Petitioner is a native-born Russian, having first seen the light of day on November 4,
1897 in the old City of St. Petersburg, Russia. He grew up as a citizen of the defunct
Imperial Russian Government under the Czars. World War I found him in the military
service of this Government.
- When the revolution broke out in Russia in 1917, he joined the White Russian Army at
Vladivostok and fought against the Bolsheviks until 1922 when the White Russian
Army was overwhelmed by the Bolsheviks. As he refused to join the Bolshevik
regime, he fled by sea from Vladivostok to Shanghai and from this Chinese port he
found his way to Manila, arriving at this port as a member of a group of White
Russians under Admiral Stark in March, 1923.
- During the years preceding the declaration of war by Russia against Japan, the
applicant of his own volition chose to cast his lot with the guerrilla movement and
fought the enemy in several encounters in the Province of Camarines Sur. He
belonged to the guerrilla outfit of Colonel Padua with rank of major. Upon the arrival
of the forces of liberation he was attached to the American Army from April to June,
1945.
- Although a Russian by birth he is not a citizen of Soviet Russia. He disclaims

allegiance to the present Communist Government of Russia. He is, therefore, a
stateless refugee in this country, belonging to no State, much less to the present
Government of the land of his birth to which he is uncompromisingly opposed.
Appellant signs four errors in the appealed resolution.

1. Appellant alleges that no documentary or testimonial evidence was introduce to
establish the fact that apellee had lawfully been admitted into the Philippines
2. Appellee cannot speak and write any of the principal Philippine languages
3. Appellee is not stateless therefore disqualified for Philippine citizenship under section
4(h) of the Revised Naturalization Law
Issue: WON appellee is entitled to acquire Filipino citizenship based on the lower courts
findings
Held:
YES.
1. The records of the Bureau of Justice, where the declarations of intention to become a
Filipino citizen were filed, had been lost or destroyed during the battle for the
liberation of Manila, and the certificate alluded to has not been reconstituted.
The undisputed fact that the petitioner has been continuously residing in the
Philippines for about 25 years, without having been molested by the authorities, who
are presumed to have been regularly performing their duties and would have
arrested petitioner if his residence is illegal, as rightly contended by appellee, can be
taken as evidence that he is enjoying permanent residence legally. That a certificate
of arrival has been issued is a fact that should be accepted upon the petitioner's
undisputed statement in his declaration of July, 1940, that the certificate cannot be
supposed that the receiving official would have accepted the declaration without the
certificate mentioned therein as attached thereto.
We conclude that petitioner's declaration is valid under section 5 of the Naturalization

Law, failure to reconstitute the certificate of arrival notwithstanding. What an
unreconstituted document intended to prove may be shown by other competent
evidence.
2. The lower court made the finding of fact that applicant speaks and writes English and
Bicol and there seems to be no question about the competency of the judge who
made the pronouncement, because he has shown by the appealed resolution and by
his questions propounded to appellee, that he has command of both English and
Bicol.
The law has not set a specific standard of the principal Philippine languages. A great
number of standards can be set. There are experts in English who say that
Shakespeare has used in his works 15,000 different English words, and the King's
Bible about 10,000, while about 5,000 are used by the better educated persons and
about 3,000 by the average individual. While there may be persons ambitious
enough to have a command of the about 600,000 words recorded in the Webster's
International Dictionary, there are authorities who would reduce basic English to a
few hundred words. Perhaps less than one hundred well selected words will be
enough for the ordinary purposes of daily life.
There is a reason to believe that the lower court's pronouncement is well taken
considering the fact that, after he was liberated in 1942 from the Japanese in the
Naga prison, petitioner joined the guerrilla in the Bicol region, took part in encounters
and skirmishes against the Japanese, and remained with the guerrilla until the
Americans liberated the Bicol provinces. If appellee with his smattering of Bicol was
able to get along with his Bicol comrades in the hazardous life of the resistance
movement, we believe that his knowledge of the language satisfies the requirement
of the law.
3. Appellant points out that petitioner stated in his petition for naturalization that he is
citizen or subject of the Empire of Russia, but the Empire of Russia has ceased to
exist since the Czars were overthrown in 1917 by the Bolshevists, and the petitioner
disclaims allegiance or connection with the Soviet Government established after the
overthrow of the Czarist Government.
We do not believe that the lower court erred in pronouncing appellee stateless.
Appellee's testimony, besides being uncontradicted, is supported by the well-known
fact that the ruthlessness of modern dictatorship has scattered throughout the world
a large number of stateless refugees or displaced persons, without country and
without flag.

Digest Kookooritchkin V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Kookooritchkin V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Kookooritchkin V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kookooritchkin v.

The lower court made the findings, among others that:

- Although a Russian by birth he is not a citizen of Soviet Russia. He disclaims

Appellant signs four errors in the appealed resolution.

We conclude that petitioner's declaration is valid under section 5 of the Naturalization

You might also like