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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17812 May 20, 1964 - CIPRIANO DEFENSOR v. HON. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17212 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LT. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18763-64 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19562 May 23, 1964 - JOSE SERRANO v. LUIS SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16217 May 25, 1964 - ALFONSO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. LUIS DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-18783 May 25, 1964 - GENEROSO BAJE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18978 May 25, 1964 - MANUEL MORATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA.CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19566 May 25, 1964 - REMELA ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE F. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-19756 May 25, 1964 - ALEJANDRA ESQUIVEL-CABATIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19849 May 25, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OLIMPIO LIMLINGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20614 and L-21517 May 25, 1964 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15998 May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18079 May 26, 1964 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. BERNARDO S. DUNGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18264 May 26, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15308 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BOYLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16086 May 29, 1964 - M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16857 May 29, 1964 - MARCELO CASTILLO, JR., ET AL. v. MACARIA PASCO

  • G.R. No. L-17639 May 29, 1964 - CESAR PABLO OBESO BEDUYA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18203 May 29, 1964 - MANUEL DE LARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18282 May 29, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRISCILA ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18450 May 29, 1964 - LU DO, ET AL. v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18777 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18808 May 29, 1964 - ACE PUBLICATION, INC. v. COMM. OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19060 May 20, 1964 - IGNACIO GERONA, ET AL. v. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19252 May 29, 1964 - TUMIPUS MANGAYAO, ET AL. v. QUINTANA LASUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19265 May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964 - MATEO DE RAMAS v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22193 May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22696 May 29, 1964 - COMM. OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10774 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-6025 & L-6026 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15056 May 30, 1964 - M. S. GALUTERA v. MAERSK LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16315 May 30, 1964 - COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16547 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16569 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. ENGINEERING CORP. v. AMADO FLORENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16975 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17774 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: CEFERINO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18476 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. SY INDONG CO. RICE & CORN MILL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18758 May 30, 1964 - DY PEK LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 18767 and L-18789-90 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADRIGAL TORINO

  • G.R. No. L-19569 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZANA YUMANG

  • G.R. No. L-19749 May 30, 1964 - MONICO CRUZ v. CAMILO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19773 May 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-16975   May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-16975. May 30, 1964.]

    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO QUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Opponent-Appellee.

    Bonifacio & Villaraza for Petitioner-Appellant.

    Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; CONFIDENTIAL ARMY REPORT SHOWING PETITIONER’S CONNECTION WITH THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IS SUFFICIENT GROUND TO DENY HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. — A confidential army report correctly admitted in evidence, showing the petitioner’s connection as one of the leaders of the Hiat Kan Tuan, the most active guerrilla unit affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, and the fact that he resided in the same place where the Hiat Kan Tuan had its headquarters, constitute sufficient ground to deny his petition to become a Filipino citizen by naturalization.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decree entered by the Court of First Instance of Manila denying for the second time the petition to become Filipino citizen by naturalization filed by Romulo Qua. When his petition for naturalization was denied for the first time, the Court of First Instance of Manila found that —

    ". . . there is a strong objection of the Philippine Army Headquarters to the petitioner’s application for admission as citizen of the Philippines on the ground that ‘in the interest of National Security’ he should not be given G-2 clearance because of an unfavorable information about him existing in the files of the General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Exhibit 4). He is suspected of subversive activities . . . (pp. 2-3, Rec. on Appeal)

    After this denial, the petitioner moved for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence. This consists of sworn statements of a certain attorney John E. Curtin, a citizen of the United States and resident of Manila, and of Lt. Col. Amadeo M. Cabe, Inf., P.C., submitted to the trial court. The sworn statement stated, among other things, that the petitioner could not possibly be or have been engaged in communication activities, because he was a guerrilla of the COWHM group during the war, fought in the hills for several months against the Japanese armed forces and rendered services in the U.S. Army C.I.D. and in the Manila Police Department. The motion for new trial was denied for lack of merit. The petitioner appealed to this Court (G.R. No. L-12279).

    In disposing of the petitioner’s appeal, this Court found that —

    The main objection of the trial court to the granting of petitioner’s application for naturalization was the refusal of the Philippine Army G-2 Department to give him a clearance on the ground that he was suspected by two officers of the Philippine Army of subversive activities. A G-2 Agent of the Philippine Army and Manuel Maravilla, a captain of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, testified as to the supposed subversive activities of the petitioner, but both witnesses refused to specify and reveal what those supposed subversive activities were on the ground that it was confidential and also for security reasons. They even refused to name the organization or entity supposedly communistic to which the petitioner was said to belong. We can not refuse or deny a petition for naturalization on mere suspicion from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, supposed to investigate alleged subversive activities. If these suspicions are based on and supported by facts they should be placed on record so that petitioner may have an opportunity to examine them and, if possible, refute them. (pp. 16-17, Rec. on Appeal)

    Consequently, this Court set aside the order appealed from and remanded the case to the lower court for new trial "so as to give petitioner as well as the Government an opportunity to present further evidence in support of or against the application for naturalization."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In this new trial, Juliana Panganiban, whose testimony during the previous trial of the case regarding the petitioner’s birth was erroneously cut short by the trial court for the reason that the best evidence on that point is the record of birth, was again called to the witness stand. John E. Curtin, an American citizen and former C.I.D. agent of the U.S. Army, testified that he came to know the petitioner in August 1945; that the petitioner worked for him in the C.I.D. for about four months; and that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, a good Catholic, and has remained anti-communist in his ideas and attitude. His testimony substantially confirmed his affidavit filed in the case (Exhibit R).chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    On its part the Government presented again its two witnesses, namely, Agent Fortunato P. Jose of G-2 Intelligence Section of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Captain Manuel Maravilla also of G-2, Armed Forces of the Philippines. On direct examination by the government prosecutor, both witnesses once more refused to reveal the subversive activities of the petitioner for the reason that it involved the security of the State and that they were not authorized or given clearance by Colonel Reynaldo Mendoza, the Chief of the G-2 of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to reveal the same. At this juncture, the government prosecutor heeding the suggestion of the court moved for continuance of the hearing and asked for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum — ad testificandum — addressed to Col. Reynaldo Mendoza, the Chief of G-2.

    On the day set for the resumption of the hearing, Major Dominador C. Dacanay, Legal Officer of the Intelligence Armed Forces of the Philippines, appeared in behalf of the Chief of the Intelligence (G-2) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum previously issued by the court. Major Dacanay submitted to the court a true copy of a confidential report (Exhibit 1) of the Chief of the Counter-Intelligence Group addressed to the "AC of S, G2, GHQ, AFP Camp Murphy, Quezon City, (Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp Murphy, Quezon City), on Romulo Qua, the petitioner in this case. It appears in the confidential report that the petitioner, Romulo Qua, is one of the leaders of the Hiat Kan Tuan and an active commander of Troop 8 thereof; that the Hiat Kan Tuan is the most active Chinese Guerrilla Unit affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party; that from 1949 to 1956 he was employed as an office clerk of the Hiat Kan Tuan whose headquarters is located at No. 106 Soler Street, Manila, where the petitioner’s residence is also located.

    After the formal presentation of the confidential report as part of the evidence for the government, the Solicitor General filed a written objection to the petition, on the ground that the petitioner is a communist suspect and active member of a Chinese guerilla unit affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. The petitioner filed a reply to the objection of the Solicitor General.

    On 24 March 1960, the court entered a decree denying again applicant’s petition to become a Filipino citizen by naturalization.

    The petitioner has appealed.

    The admission in evidence of the report submitted to the court is correct, because the facts therein stated were entered by a public officer in the performance of his duties. The person referred to therein is no other than the petitioner. Even his connection with, or employment as agent by, the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.), U.S. Army, mentioned by his witness John E. Curtin is there reported. His connection as one of the leaders of the Hiat Kan Tuan, the most active Chinese guerrilla unit affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, and the fact that he resided in the same place, 106 Soler Street, Manila, where the Hiat Kan Tuan had its headquarters, constitute sufficient ground to deny his petition to become a Filipino citizen by naturalization.

    The decree appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Petitioner-Appellant.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-16975   May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.


    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