September 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > September 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-15543 September 29, 1961 - LAO LIAN SU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. :
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-15543. September 29, 1961.]
LAO LIAN SU alias LORENZO TING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Jose A. Uy for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; ALLEGATIONS IN PETITION INCONSISTENT WITH INCOME TAX RETURNS; DISCREPANCY UNEXPLAINED. — While applicant stated in his petition that he had three children, in his income tax returns, he claimed exemption for four children. These unexplained contradictory statements under oath can only lead to the conclusion either that the petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from either that the petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from him or that he has concealed the truth in his application, either of which would be sufficient to disqualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Appeal from a decree of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, denying the application of petitioner-appellant Lao Lian Su alias Lorenzo Ting for admission to Philippine citizenship, because of applicant’s failure to observe irreproachable conduct in his relations with constituted authorities during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.
We see no merit in the appeal. In his sworn petition for naturalization as well as in his testimony, petitioner stated that he has only three children with his wife Chua Kim Tia, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Besie Ting, born 11/25/39
Esteban Ting, born 4/11/46
Betty Ting, born 8/16/51.
Yet in the verified income tax returns filed in his name and that of his wife for the years from 1951 to 1957, the contents of which he ratified under oath while on the witness stand, the spouses appear to have claim exemption for a fourth child by the name of Ting Kock King, supposedly born on 10 October 1948. Of the inconsistency between the sworn statements, petitioner proffered no explanation whatsoever, although counsel for appellant insinuates in the brief that Ting Kock King could be an adopted child of the spouses; but the insinuation is totally devoid of proof, which the applicant was duty-bound to submit to the Court. As the record now stands, the contradictory statements under oath can only lead to the conclusion either that the petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from him or that he has concealed the truth in his application. Either alternative would be sufficient to disqualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., did not take part.
We see no merit in the appeal. In his sworn petition for naturalization as well as in his testimony, petitioner stated that he has only three children with his wife Chua Kim Tia, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Besie Ting, born 11/25/39
Esteban Ting, born 4/11/46
Betty Ting, born 8/16/51.
Yet in the verified income tax returns filed in his name and that of his wife for the years from 1951 to 1957, the contents of which he ratified under oath while on the witness stand, the spouses appear to have claim exemption for a fourth child by the name of Ting Kock King, supposedly born on 10 October 1948. Of the inconsistency between the sworn statements, petitioner proffered no explanation whatsoever, although counsel for appellant insinuates in the brief that Ting Kock King could be an adopted child of the spouses; but the insinuation is totally devoid of proof, which the applicant was duty-bound to submit to the Court. As the record now stands, the contradictory statements under oath can only lead to the conclusion either that the petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from him or that he has concealed the truth in his application. Either alternative would be sufficient to disqualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., did not take part.
