Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > June 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-7956. June 27, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of MANUEL LI KWONG to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines: MANUEL LI KWONG, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-7956.  June 27, 1956.]

In the matter of the petition of MANUEL LI KWONG to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines:  MANUEL LI KWONG, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

 

D E C I S I O N

PARAS, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna denying the petition for naturalization filed by the Petitioner-Appellant, Manuel Li Kwong.

The trial court, in denying the petition for naturalization, called attention to the facts (l) that the Appellant made a wrong choice of jurisdiction, in that while it was alleged in the petition that the Appellant is a resident of Los Baños, the evidence consisting of his marriage certificate, income tax returns, and residence certificate, shows that his residence is in Manila; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) that while he claimed to be a Catholic, it turned out that he is an Aglipayan; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(3) that while he claimed to have twelve employees in his printing press, without any Chinese employee, an ocular inspection made by the court showed that the printing press was not in operation and there were only four Filipinos and one Chinaman; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (4) that although he claimed to have an annual income of P50,000, he had a bank account of only P2 while his wife had a bank account of only P38 thereby casting a doubt as to Petitioner’s solvency.

The Solicitor General in his brief concurs with the Appellant in contending that the grounds invoked by the trial court are untenable. Even so, he recommends affirmance of the appealed decision on the sole ground that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the Petitioner has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

We agree with both the Appellant and the Solicitor General in their view that the court a quo erred. With reference to the matter of residence, it may be stated that the record shows that the Petitioner has since 1931 lived with his wife in Los Baños, Laguna, although he goes to Manila every day in connection with his business, thereby being absent from his family residence only in the day time. The statement in the marriage contract, residence certificate and income tax returns to the effect that the Appellant was a resident of Manila is not conclusive and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the Appellant, corroborated by his witnesses, that his residence is in Los Baños, especially considering the fact that there is absolutely no showing that the Appellant owns or is renting a residential home in Manila. We have held in the case of Pajo vs. Borja, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1951) Off. Gaz., page 310, that a residence certificate is not truly what its name implies, “a certificate of residence”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryit is more properly an “identification certificate” for the reason that the place and date of birth and civil status are required to be placed therein, and these circumstances identify the holder, and for the further reason that the law requires it to be exhibited as a means of identification before a government department, branch or office, or before notaries public. It is obvious that Manila was mentioned in the income tax returns merely because he has his business there.

In connection with Appellant’s claim that he has an annual income of P50,000, it is to be remembered that he asked the permission of the court to amend his pleading by alleging that said income was meant to be gross, as actually shown by the evidence. This petition to amend was denied by the trial court, and we believe erroneously. The amendment should have been allowed conformably to the Rules of Court so as to make the allegation in the pleading agreeable to the facts proven.

As to Appellant’s solvency, the record shows that he has as annual net income of about P7,000. The fact that at the time the court make an ocular inspection of Appellant’s printing press, only four Filipinos and a Chinaman were found therein, is not sufficient to overcome the positive evidence to the effect that Appellant’s income is more or less P7,000, not to mention the circumstance that he owns one-half of the house where he is living in Los Baños costing about P15,600, the same being conjugal property, although in the name of his wife. The number of employees which the Appellant has in his printing press, alleged by him to be eleven, is borne out by the corresponding report to the Bureau of Labor, Exhibit “P”. Upon the other hand, the bank balances in favor of the Petitioner and the latter’s wife are not a correct index as to the annual income.

We are constrained to overrule the objection interposed by the Solicitor General that tends to support the appealed decision, namely, that there is no sufficient proof that the Appellant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. It is noteworthy that the present petition for naturalization was unopposed, and the Appellant positively testified that he has never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. It is true that ordinarily clearances from the proper authorities are presented in evidence, but there is no law to that effect, with the result that the uncontroverted evidence presented by the Appellant on the point has to be given weight. Moreover, the clearances referred to by the Solicitor General have in this instance been incorporated into the record, and although they cannot be legally considered as formal evidence, they tend at least to satisfy a requirement insisted upon by the Solicitor General but not imposed by law.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the petition for naturalization filed by the Petitioner-Appellant is hereby granted. So ordered without costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8222. June 25, 1956.] GREGORIO TARCA and RODOLFO TARCA CASTRO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ANGELES CASON VDA. DE CARRETERO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8294. June 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURELIO LABAY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8384. June 25, 1956.] GO GUIOC SIAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JUDGE CIRILO MACEREN, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5996. June 27, 1956.] RAFAEL A. DINGLASAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. LEE BUN TING, ANG CHIA, in her capacity as widow of the deceased Lee Liong, as well as judicial administratrix of the properties of said deceased, and CLARO LEE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7599. June 27, 1956.] MARTHA LUMBER MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROMANA V. LAGRADANTE, for herself and as guardian of her minor children LETICIA and PEDRO, JR., PALENCIA, and ERLINA LAGRADANTE and the WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7956. June 27, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of MANUEL LI KWONG to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines: MANUEL LI KWONG, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7266. June 28, 1956.] VICTORY LINER, INC., Petitioner, vs. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8029. June 28, 1956.] EMILIA ESPIQUE and SANTIAGO ESPIQUE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JACINTO ESPIQUE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8611. June 28, 1956.] SEVERINO P. JUSTO, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8860. June 28, 1956.] ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE GIL, as Commissioner of Civil Service, HONORABLE A. H. LACSON, as Mayor, City of Manila, and THE HONORABLE MUNICIPAL BOARD, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8318. June 29, 1956.] PEDRO F. SIOCHI, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE T. TIRONA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [Adm. Case No. 180. June 30, 1956.] LUIS N. DE LEON, complainant, vs. JOSE Y. TORRES, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7407. June 30, 1956.] ATLAS TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. F. LIMGENCO CO., LTD., doing business under the name and style of WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., FRANCISCO LIMGENCO, JR., WILLIAM HERMAN, TED LEWIN AND PAUL MACDONALD, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7466. June 30, 1956.] MARIA ROSADO RUIZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. LOURDES T. PAGUIO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8110. June 30, 1956.] MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MAMADOR and GERONIMO MA. COLL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8715. June 30, 1956.] PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO BALANGUIT, ET AL., (PUBLIC UTILITIES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [FEATI CHAPTER] and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8814. June 30, 1956.] EUGENIO DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUAN BOCAR and HONORABLE EMILIO RILLORAZA, Acting Judge and Vacationing Judge, respectively, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, and the RUFINA AND COMPANY, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9223. June 30, 1956.] EDUARDO BRILLANTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEONARDO CASTRO, doing business under the name and style of �ALMACAS POLICE PROTECTIVE BUREAU�, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9177. June 30, 1956.] ROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and GORGONIO JAVA, Respondents.