ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
 





 
 

G.R. No. L-1675   July  30, 1949 - LOCK BEN PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />084 Phil 217

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-1675. July 30, 1949.]

LOCK BEN PING (alias JOSEPH LOCK BEN PING), Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., and Solicitor Lucas Lacson, for Oppositor-Appellant.

Ricardo Reyes, for Petitioner-Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; RECIPROCITY LAWS; LAWS OF CHINA PERMIT FILIPINOS TO NATURALIZE IN SAID COUNTRY; DOCTRINE REITERATED. — "This Court has already accepted it as a fact in previous naturalization cases that the laws of China permit Filipinos to naturalize in that country." (Yee Bo Mann v. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-1606, May 28, 1949.)


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu granting the petition for naturalization as a Filipino citizen of Lock Ben Ping alias Joseph Lock Ben Ping.

The petitioner is a citizen or subject of China, his legal qualifications to become a Filipino citizen is not questioned, and the only contention raised by the Solicitor General in his brief refers to the alleged failure of the petitioner to establish by competent evidence that under the laws of his country Filipinos may become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. Specifically, it is insisted for the appellant that the purported copy of the Chinese Naturalization Law (presented in evidence by the petitioner) should not have been considered by the lower Court, because it was certified to merely by the Chinese Consul in the Philippines who is not the custodian of the original law. We need not pass upon this proposition, for "this Court has already accepted it as a fact in previous naturalization cases that the laws of China permit Filipinos to naturalize in that country." (Yee Bo Mann v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-1606, May 28, 1949.)

The appealed judgment is therefore affirmed, without costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-1675   July  30, 1949 - LOCK BEN PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />084 Phil 217


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

   

cralaw



 
  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED