Construction in Corporate and Naturalization Laws

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full texts of the cases cited. Xie xie!

Statutory Construction Reviewer by Chester Cabalza

CORPORATE LAW

Rule in the interpretation corporate law provisions

1. Home Insurance vs. Eastern Shipping Lines

Whether a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines initially without a license can claim indemnity through Philippine Courts. The objective of the law was to subject the foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of our courts. The Corporation Law must be given a reasonable, not an unduly harsh, interpretation which does not hamper the development of trade relations and which fosters friendly commercial intercourse among countries. The Supreme Court consolidated and granted the petitions, reversed and set aside the CFI decisions. In L-34382 (Civil Case 71923), Eastern Shipping Lines and Angel Jose Transportation Inc. are ordered to pay the Home Insurance Company.


NATURALIZATION LAWS

1. Co v. Republic

Whether petitioner failed to comply with the requirements prescribed by law in order to qualify him to become a Filipino citizen. Philippine law requires that an alien to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. In the present case, in so stating that he believes merely in our laws, he did not necessarily refer to those principles embodied in our constitution which are referred to in the law; the belief in democracy or in a democratic form of government is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of the law that one must believe in the principles underlying our constitution. Further, petitioner failed to show that he has complied with his obligation to register his wife and child with the Bureau of Immigration as required by the Alien Registration Act; and further failed to file his income tax return.

2. Lee Cho v. Republic

Whether petitioner was able to comply with the requirements for naturalization. The provisions of the Naturalization Law should be strictly construed in order that its laudable and nationalistic purpose may be fully fulfilled. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed any declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen because, as he claims, he has resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of more than 30 years and has given primary and secondary education to all his children in private schools recognized by the government. This circumstance betrays the sincerity of petitioner to become a Filipino citizen for if his motive were proper he should not have tolerated such deviation from the educational requirement of the law. The petitioner, thus, has failed to qualify to become a Filipino citizen.