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
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10286   May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />103 Phil 730

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10286. May 23, 1958.]

    LUIS E. ARRIOLA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor for Appellant.

    Enrique Jimenez for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. NATURALIZATION; CORRECTION OF AN ERRONEOUS INFORMATION APPEARING IN THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE; EFFECT ON THE MORAL CHARACTER AND IRREPROACHBLE CONDUCT OF PETITIONER. — The petitioner presented himself as a Chinese national and when his attention was called to the fact that in his residence certificate for 1955, which is a false statement of his nationality, he took the necessary steps to rectify that mistake, and instead of doing it by himself he went to the person whom he beleived to be vested with authority to accomplish the proper change desired, namely, the Chief of the Residence Certificate Section, City treasurer’s Office, Manila. Held: The act of petitioner in causing the correction of an erroneous information appearing in his cedula which had passed to him unnoticed, correction that he caused to be made by the authority or person having custody of the original of the same, cannot reflect unfavorably on petitioner’s moral character and irreproachable conduct. "Any alteration which makes a cedula speak the truth cannot be made the foundation of a criminal action. It is a falsification, and not a correction which the law punishes. (U.S. v. Mateo, 25 Phil., 324.)


    D E C I S I O N


    FELIX, J.:


    The petition alleges and the evidence shows that Luis F. Arriola was born in the City of Manila on August 19, 1926, of Chinese parents. Since then he resided in this country and in the City of Manila for a period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of the petition, interrupted only by 2 vacations in Amoy, China, first, when he was 2 years old and the second when he was 9 years of age. He is the manager of his father’s Cafeteria from which he derives an average annual income of P1,800.00 with free board and lodging. He has a savings account with the China Banking Corporation with a deposit of P4,029.07 as of August 12, 1955 (Exh. R.) . He is single and can speak, read and write English and Tagalog, as shown by his testimony given in English and a sample of his handwriting in Tagalog which is marked as Exhibit X-court). He finished his primary and intermediate courses in Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, and the high school course in Cuyapó, Nueva Ecija. He is a holder of the degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce (cum laude) from the Far Eastern University, which was awarded to him on April 12, 1953. While a student in the Far Eastern University, he was a member of the Kappa Gamma Phi membership, which was based only on highly scholastic and moral considerations. He believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as the community in which he is living. He is not opposed to organized government nor affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all forms of organized government. He does not defend nor teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of man’s ideas. Neither is he polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy. He has never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, nor is he suffering from mental alienation or any incurable contagious disease. He has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has learned and embraced the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos. That part of China of which he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines, which part grants rights to Filipinos to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. He has paid all his obligations to the government, as shown by his income tax receipts, based on income tax returns filed by him.

    Two Filipinos of good standing in the country are his witnesses, namely, Andres Palma, Professor in the Far Eastern University and Technical Adviser on Economic matters at the National Development Company, and Angel Roman, Jr., also a Professor in the Far Eastern University, both of whom speak very highly of the petitioner and warrant that he is a person of good moral character and a law-abiding citizen, and, therefore, recommend the approval of the petition (Rec. on Appeal Petition — p. 1-6 and Decision — p. 7-9).

    Having been born in this country Luis F. Arriola was dispensed with the notice of declaration of intention and his petition was published as required.

    The hearing of the case was going through nicely until petitioner took the witness stand, when in the course of his cross-examination the representative of the Solicitor asked him as to whether he had paid his residence tax, and answering in the affirmative, he produced his residence certificate No. A-0224451 for the year 1955, which the government requested to be marked as Exhibit 1 (p. 31 of the Record of Exhibits). It was noticed then that despite of all other exhibits produced by petitioner wherein he appeared as "Chinese", in said residence certificate he was stated to be a "Filipino citizen", which was not true, and asked to explain this discrepancy, he replied that he did not know it because he acquired the same through an agent and that it was only at that time that he noticed that his said certificate mentioned him as Filipino. Petitioner then asked for the continuation of the hearing, which was granted by the Court setting the continuation thereof for August 18, 1955. On that date petitioner, instead of presenting the persons who secured that certificate for him, who most likely had committed the alleged mistake, produced the same residence certificate with the word "Filipino" instead of the word "Chinese" appearing before as the citizenship of the petitioner. On the reverse side of that certificate, however, there was the following explanation: "Duplicate hereof changed as to Chinese citizenship per ACR No. 22803, dtd. 7/17/50, Manila" followed by the initials "R.C. 8/17/55." The initials R.C. correspond to the name Rufino Cervantes, Chief, Residence Certificate Section, City Treasurer’s Office, Manila, who, at the hearing, testified for the petitioner acknowledging to have made that change.

    The representative of the Solicitor General makes too much ado about this incident, and says that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    One of the cardinal qualifications for naturalization provided by law is that the applicant must be of good moral character and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living (Sec. 2, paragraph 3, Revised Naturalization Law). In general, what constitutes "good moral character" is such character that measures to the standard of the average citizen where the applicant resides. The word "character" though is not synonymous with "reputation." It simply means what a person really is, not what he is supposed to be. In other words, the inquiry of proof in naturalization proceedings is not so much as to the good reputation of the applicant, but as to his good behavior as an index of actual good moral character, so that specific acts of bad behavior are material and competent. Needless to state, this requirement of good moral character applies to the period up to the date of the hearing (2 Am. Jur. 569; In re Boomer [D. C. Mont. 1922] 79 F. 789, cited in USCA, Title 8, footnote No. 21, p. 436-37). The Court, therefore can and should consider any act of misconduct which militates against the applicant in relation to his petition for naturalization."

    just to come to the conclusion that applicant Luis F. Arriola has not proved to be a person of honesty, fairness and morality, indispensable requisites for moral character to entitle him to a grant of Philippine citizenship. The lower Court, however, did not yield to consider the petitioner as one not being of good moral character and of irreproachable behavior, and granted the petition. Hence, this appeal by the Government wherein appellant contends that the lower Court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. In finding that petitioner is of good moral character and that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner with the constituted Government; and

    2. In granting the instant petition for naturalization.

    After weighing carefully the arguments adduced by the Solicitor General, We cannot find anything wrong in the behavior of the petitioner or that he is not of good moral character by reason of the alleged correction of his aforementioned certificate of residence. There is ample proof on record that the petitioner presented himself as a Chinese national and when his attention was called to the fact that in his residence certificate for 1955, which was procured through an agent, he appeared as a Filipino, which is a false statement of his nationality, he took the necessary steps to rectify that mistake, and instead of doing it by himself he went to the person whom he believed to be vested with authority to accomplish the proper change desired, namely, the Chief of the Residence Certificate Section, City Treasurer’s Office, Manila, Mr. Rufino Cervantes. Perhaps, the Solicitor General is right in saying that there is no law expressly authorizing the petitioner or said Chief of Section to make the correction aforementioned, although We are inclined to believe that the latter official could have done it after receiving evidence of the mistake appearing in a record under his custody. In the case of U. S. v. Alejandro R. Mateo, 25 Phil., 324, this Court stated the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "M being required in October, 1911, for the purpose of an affidavit to present his cedula for the year 1911 to a Justice of the Peace, produced also his cedula for 1910; on reading the cedula for the year 1910, something which he had not done before, M discovered that his age was stated incorrectly therein and he, fearing the result of presenting to a public official a cedula which contains an incorrect statement regarding his own age, changed the age, making it 25 instead of 23; the change having been discovered by the Justice of the Peace on the presentation of the cedula, M, without hesitation, detailed the part he had taken in the change and the reasons therefore; it is admitted that the age in the cedula was incorrect and that the change made the cedula give his true age; M was charged with falsification of a cedula and was convicted. Held: Error.

    In order that the crime of falsification of a cedula be committed it is necessary that the cedula, after the alteration, be capable, of effecting a fraud or deception against the Government, or of obtaining for the person who altered it some privilege or immunity which he would not have been able to obtain if the alteration had not been made.

    In order that the crime of falsification of a cedula be committed it is necessary that the alteration be a material one, that is, one capable of injuring the Government or benefiting the accused. A change which cannot possibly produce any such result, either injurious or beneficial, is not sufficient to constitute a violation of Act 1189.

    x       x       x


    "Any alteration which makes a cedula speak the truth cannot be made the foundation of a criminal action. It is a falsification, and not a correction, which the law punishes." (See also the case of People v. Moreno, CA-38, Off. Gaz., 109).

    We, therefore, conclude that the act of petitioner in causing the correction of an erroneous information appearing in his cedula which had passed to him unnoticed, correction that he caused to be made by the authority or person having custody of the original of the same, cannot reflect unfavorable on petitioner’s moral character and irreproachable conduct.

    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Endencia, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    REYES J. B. L., J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur in the result, but do not think that the rule of U. S. v. Mateo is opposite. After all, a conduct may not be irreproachable even if it is not criminal.

    I agree, however, that under the circumstances, the documentary correction procured by the applicant, altho ill-advised, is not reproachable conduct within the purview of the Naturalization law.

    Concepcion, J., concurs.

    G.R. No. L-10286   May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />103 Phil 730


    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