Appeal by the Solicitor  General  from  the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 20008, admitting petitioner Ramon Cheng Quioc Too to Philippine citizenship.

The Solicitor General, who opposed the petition below, argues in this appeal that petitioner  has not sufficiently proved that  he was  born in the Philippines and so was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention,  since his alleged birth certificate  (Exhibit "C"), stands in the name;  and  that the   petition for  naturalization   was prompted  mainly  by  reasons of  business conveniences rather than a desire to live the life of a Filipino. Petitioner,  on the other hand, contends that he was really born at 719 Sto.  Cristo, Manila on August 24, 1927; that the discrepancy in the name in  said birth certificate ;was due only to  a mistake  on  the part of the  midwife who, in reporting  petitioner's birth,  gave the name of a girl, Ching Sui Keng,  instead of petitioner's name Cheng Quioc Too, which is the name of a boy; that the date and place of birth appearing on the birth certificate (Exhibit "C") are those of petitioner; and that the names of the parents entered thereon are those of petitioner's parents, and petitioner was their only child.

It also claimed that petitioner discovered  the mistake in the entry  of his name in his birth certificate only in 1952, when he filed in the Court of  First  Instance  of Manila  a petition for the correction  of said entry  (Civil Case No.  22344), but the decision  directing  the  Local Civil Register to  make the necessary correction  on petitioner's birth  certificate from the reported name of Ching Sui Keng to Cheng Quioc Too (Appendix "A", to Appellee's brief) is now  pending in the Court of Appeals upon appeal by the  Solicitor General (C. A.-G. R.  No. 16688-R).

As we see it, the main obstacle to the grant now of the petition  is that  to admit  petitioner  to citizenship  as  a Philippine  born alien would be completely  at variance with the official record of births.  If it be true that  there was error in said  records, the petitioner should first take the proper steps to have that error corrected; a naturalization proceeding is not the right action to attain that result, since rectification of official  records is an  issue foreign to the purpose for which naturalization was established.   If,  as alleged, petitioner has  already asked  the  Courts to order a  correction of the entry in his record of birth, the final action on that petition  should be awaited.  To grant him naturalization now would be premature.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from  is set aside and these proceedings are ordered dismissed, but without prejudice  to the petitioner's renewing his  application  for naturalization after  correction  or  rectification  of  the official record of his birth, if proper.   Without costs.  So ordered.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion,  Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.