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
pleses of the
the Phil
Philip
ippi
pine
ne Cons
Constititu
tuti
tion,
on, and
and bein
being g a stat
statele
eless
ss refug
refugeeee
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
Philippinesnes and could
could speak
speak and writewrite 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’sr’s declar
declarati
ation
on was reconst
reconstituituted
ted,, the attach
attached
ed certifi
certificat
catee referre
referredd to in the
declar
declaratiation
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
certificatee 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, appellee-
petitioner’
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
Appellee-ee-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. Appellee-
Appellee-
petitioner got along well with his comrades during his hazardous days in the guerrilla
moveme
movement nt thus showing
showing that he satisfsatisfied
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 well-
known 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.