Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > December 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9646 December 21, 1957 - LAY KOCK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

102 Phil 657:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-9646. December 21, 1957.]

LAY KOCK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Dominador Sobreviñas and Macario L. Nicolas for Appellee.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; CHARACTER WITNESSES; COMPETENCY TO DECLARE ON PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE. — Although the Revised Naturalization Law requires the witnesses to state that they "personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by the Act, this "period" has been interpreted to mean ten years before the filing of the petition, under section 2 or five years under section 3 of the Act.

2. ID.; ID.; SOURCES OF INFORMATION OF A PERSON’S CONDUCT. — One does not need to personally know another from the moment of the latter’s birth or age of reason, to qualify as witness to his proper and law-abiding behavior. Existing records, common reputation and mutual friends and acquaintance are available sources of information.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Appellant ascribes error to the decision of the Sulu court granting Lay Kock’s petition for naturalization on three grounds, namely, (a) failure to file with the Bureau of Justice his declaration of intention one year before applying for citizenship; (b) lack of the requisite moral qualification and of sincere disposition to adopt Filipino ways of life, and (c) incompetency of his character witnesses.

As to the first ground, the record shows presentation of this petition on July 27, 1954. At the hearing, petitioner swore to having forwarded his declaration of intention "sometime in July 1953." The money order attached to such declaration bears the date July 2, 1953. As against this evidence the Solicitor General points to the receipt issued by his office (dated August 5, 1953) acknowledging payment of the fees for filing petitioner’s declaration. We think however that this is not positive proof of the date of filing of the declaration. It is true, the petitioner did not specify the date he forwarded in but such omission obviously resulted from the absence of objection on that specific ground in the trial court; indeed the fiscal who handled the opposition, failed to cross-examine him for particulars. Now if "sometime in July" meant on or before July 27, 1953 the one year condition precedent had been complied with. On the other hand, if it meant any day afterwards (July 28-31) there would be a shortage of one to four days. Now, would such small difference be fatal? We do not deem it necessary to discuss this aspect, partly because it was not raised in the lower court — it could have been raised — and partly because although appellee’s brief asserts that "factually the declaration was received in the Office of the Solicitor General on July 11, 1953, as its records show," we discover no denial of such assertion in the pleadings or memoranda subsequently submitted to this Court.

On the second ground, appellant quotes appellee’s own admission of having married his wife simply because she was his mother’s choice and of having left the former in China to take care of the latter. This goes to show, argues appellant, Lay Kock’s unwillingness to discard Chinese in favor of local customs; and considering that he has not brought his wife here, and has stopped sending her support ever since the last war, he may not be deemed to have observed a proper and irreproachable conduct.

Yet even among Filipino there are wives who have been selected by their respective mothers-in-law and who lived with and cared for them. As to appellee’s failure to bring his wife to this country or to send her support, he explained that

"I went to China in 1947. My aim was to find out what happened to my mother and my wife but the town people told me that my mother died during the Japanese Occupation in China and afterwards my wife have evacuated but they did not know so I stayed only for a few months trying to find her but I could not locate her so I leave words to the people of that place to inform me if they happen to see my wife. . . . And now in recent years even with the information I received from friends in Hongkong not long after that I sent a letter to my friends but that letter was never answered and so I gave up hope communicating with her. I wanted to communicate with her but I could not."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is urged as a third ground of objection that petitioner’s witnesses were incompetent because they did not know him since 1923 when he began residing in the Philippines. One witness, it would seem, became his acquaintance in 1925 and the others in 1927.

Although the law requires the witnesses to state that they "personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act" (section 7) we have already interpreted this "period" to mean ten years before the petition, under section 2 or five years under section 3 of the Act. 1 Therefore, the said witnesses were competent on that score.

If the argument however is addressed not to their competency to declare on petitioner’s residence, but on the latter’s conduct "during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines" under section 2 2 our comment is that one does not need to personally know another from the moment of the latter’s birth or age of reason, to qualify as witness to his proper and law-abiding behaviour. Existing records, common reputation and mutual friends and acquaintances are available sources of information.

The appealed decision sets forth in detail the circumstances disclosed at the hearing of this petition which show petitioner’s possession of all the qualifications prescribed by the Naturalization Law. As the objections of the appellant appear to be without merit, the said decision should accordingly be affirmed; and it is hereby affirmed, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Chua Tiong v. Republic of the Phil. 93 Phil., 117; Awad v. Republic 97 Phil., 569, Padilla Civil Law 1956 Ed. Vol. I p. 155, 157.

2. Supposing this is to be literally applied - not the ten or five-year period already mentioned.




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






December-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7763 December 2, 1957 - HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO v. GO CHONG BING

    102 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. L-10263 December 17, 1957 - ASSN. OF DRUGSTORE EMPLOYEES v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    102 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-10787 December 17, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. the CITY OF DUMAGUETE

    102 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-10795 December 17, 1957 - TEOTIMO OCHOTORENA v. the DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    102 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-10008 December 18, 1957 - SY KIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-11240 December 18, 1957 - CONCHITA LIGUEZ v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. L-9914 December 19, 1957 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA v. MONS. PEDRO P. SANTOS

    102 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-8451 December 20, 1957 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO v. THE LAND REGISTRATION COMM.

    102 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-10850 December 20, 1957 - DOROTEO ROMERO v. PEDRO VILLAMOR

    102 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-12820 December 20, 1957 - SMB BOX FACTORY WORKER’S UNION (PAFLU) v. HON. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    102 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-9549 December 21, 1957 - MANILA TOBACCO ASSOCIATION v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    102 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. L-9646 December 21, 1957 - LAY KOCK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-7452 December 23, 1957 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. WILLIAM VILLARRUZ

    102 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-8259 December 23, 1957 - ANG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG ANG TIBAY ENTERPRISES v. ANG TIBAY

    102 Phil 669

  • G.R. Nos. L-11128-33 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE ESCARES

    102 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-11489 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY JUI PIO

    102 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-7593 December 24, 1957 - IN RE: Florencio P. Buan v. SYLVINA C. LAYA

    102 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-7705 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GERVACIO

    102 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-7805 December 24, 1957 - PETRONILO CASTAÑEDA v. CATALINA M. DE LEON

    102 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-7840 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ABRINA Y MONTANO ET. AL.

    102 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-10182 December 24, 1957 - JOSE GEUKEKO v. HON. SALVADOR ARANETA

    102 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11142 December 24, 1957 - ISIDORO P. AURELIO v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-6273 December 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE HIDALGO y RESURRECCION

    102 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-11114 December 27, 1957 - CRESENCIANO TORREFRANCA v. FILOMENO ALBISO

    102 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-11435 December 27, 1957 - HON. MATEO L. ALCASID v. AMADO V. SAMSON

    102 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-7310 December 28, 1957 - ANTONIO MANIMTIM v. CO CHO CHIT

    102 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-8333 December 28, 1957 - GELACIO BODIONGAN v. HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA

    102 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-8334 December 28, 1957 - BIENVENIDO BABAO v. FLORENCIO PEREZ

    102 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-10000 December 28, 1957 - IN RE: JOSE B. SUNTAY v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

    102 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-10036 December 28, 1957 - GENERAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. CESAREO DE LEON

    102 Phil 784

  • G.R. Nos. L-10943 & L-10944 December 28, 1957 - ANGAT RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM v. ANGAT RIVER WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM)

    102 Phil 789