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
 

   
September-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 190 September 26, 1964 - MARCOS MEDINA v. LORETO U. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-17405 September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19132 September 26, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO CAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-17069 September 28, 1964 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-18421 September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI

  • G.R. No. L-18817 September 28, 1964 - ANTONIO G. TADY-Y v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18865 September 28, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN S. ALANO

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-22626 September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON

  • G.R. No. L-16252 September 29, 1964 - ROSARIO MAS v. ELISA DUMARA-OG

  • G.R. No. L-17097 September 29, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19159 September 29, 1964 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. LUIS B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-19391 September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-19776 September 29, 1964 - BENJAMIN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19957 September 29, 1964 - ELIAS AGUSTIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PANIQUI SUGAR MILLS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20111 September 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO E. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. L-14888 September 30, 1964 - MERCEDES CLEMENTE v. JOVITO BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. L-15418 September 30, 1964 - WEST LEYTE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. ADELAIDO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-17029 September 30, 1964 - SAMUEL S. SHARRUF v. FRANK BUBLA

  • G.R. No. L-17194 September 30, 1964 - PRIMITIVO SATO v. SIMEON RALLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17960 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: SY CHHUT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18596 September 30, 1964 - ALVAREZ MALAGUIT v. FELIX ALIPIO

  • G.R. No. L-18674 September 30, 1964 - FLORENTINA CALMA v. JOSE MONTUYA

  • G.R. No. L-19107-09 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: LAO YAP HAN DIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19419 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19583 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ONG BON KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. L-19709 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19778 September 30, 1964 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19830 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: PAUL TEH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20077 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PACOMIO

  • G.R. No. L-20103 September 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CONCHITA VDA. DE CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20146 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO OPLADO

  • G.R. No. L-20150 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN DOCTOR y DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-20232 September 30, 1964 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-19419   September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-19419. September 30, 1964.]

    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GAW CHING TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, GAW CHING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

    Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.

    Jesus S. Tenchavez for Petitioner-Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; OMISSION TO STATE IN APPLICATION PRESENT AND FORMER PLACES OF APPLICANT’S RESIDENCE FATAL. — The omission of an applicant for naturalization in his petition of a former place of residence is fatal, despite his contention that it was near his present residence.

    2. ID.; ID.; SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT OF TWO CREDIBLE PERSONS; MEANING OF "CREDIBLE PERSONS. — "Credible persons", as the term is used in our Revised Naturalization Law, means: ". . . not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made, but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF CHARACTER WITNESSES MUST SUFFICIENTLY ATTEST TO PETITIONER’S QUALIFICATIONS AND ABSENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION. — Petitioner’s character witnesses must know him sufficiently to attest to the possession by him of the requisite qualifications and of none of the disqualifications of law. Where their testimony in this regard is too general to satisfactorily establish the same, they should be disregarded.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    This is an appeal taken by the Government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, granting the application of petitioner Gaw Ching for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines.

    The Solicitor General maintains that said decision should be reversed because; (1) petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 7, of the Revised Naturalization Law; (2) petitioner’s character witnesses failed to establish adequately his right to be naturalized; and (3) petitioner’s occupation is not sufficiently lucrative to warrant his naturalization.

    On July 2, 1962, the Solicitor General filed a motion praying that this case be remanded to the lower court for the reception of newly discovered evidence, allegedly tending to show that "there had been palpable lack of good faith, bordering on misrepresentation, on the part of the petitioner-appellee Gaw Ching in his naturalization papers." Action thereon was, however, deferred by this Court, by resolution dated July 27, 1962, until after the hearing of the appeal.

    Pursuant to Section 7 of said law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended), an application for naturalization shall state not only petitioner’s present but, also, his "former places of residence." Petitioner admits that the latter data are not given in his petition herein, but, he alleges that this was due to sheer inadvertence on his part. He, moreover, maintains that such omission should not be considered fatal, for his present residence is No. 699 Asuncion Street, Manila, and his old address was No. 512 of the same street, which, he now claims, is nearby, and, hence, could not have affected materially the investigation that the authorities must have undertaken in connection with the present case. However, this argument is based upon a mere supposition, which, as such, has very little weight. Besides, considering that said street is located in one of the most densely populated sections of Manila, the distance between petitioner’s new residence and the old one may spell the difference between success and failure in the conduct of said investigation. Again, the aforementioned non-compliance with the law must be assumed to have impaired the substantial effectivity of the investigation aforementioned, unless proved otherwise, and no such proof has been introduced or even offered by the petitioner.

    Then again, said law requires that the application for naturalization be supported by the affidavit of two (2) "credible persons." According to the decision of this Court in Ong v. Republic, L-10642, May 30, 1958 (see, also, Cuaki Tan Si v. Republic, L-18006, October 31, 1962), "credible persons", as the term is used in our Revised Naturalization Law, means:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose ‘affidavit’ or testimony is not incredible. What must be ‘credible’ is not the declaration made, but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value; as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner. Thus, in Cu v. Republic G.R. No. L-3018 (decided on July 18, 1951), we declared that said affiants ‘are in a way insurers of the character of the candidate concerned’. Indeed, by their affidavits, they do not merely make the statements therein contained. They also vouch for the applicant, attest to the merits of his petition and sort of underwrite the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The records do not show that petitioner’s character witnesses, namely, Salvador Estenzo and Benjamin Amog, particularly, the latter, live up to the foregoing standard. What is more, their testimony concerning petitioner’s qualifications and the alleged absence of disqualifications is too general to satisfactorily establish the same. In fact, they do not know him sufficiently to attest to the possession by him of the requisite qualifications and of none of the aforementioned disqualifications. It may not be amiss to note, also, that in his obvious interest to show that petitioner is well known to him, witness Amog declared that when he first met petitioner in 1946 he was already residing at No. 699 Asuncion Street, although according to Exhibit H of the petitioner, dated July 18, 1950, his residence up to such date was still No. 512 of the same street.

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is unnecessary for us either to take up appellant’s third assignment of error, or to pass upon appellant’s aforementioned motion of July 2, 1962, and the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, with costs against appellee, Gaw Ching. It is so ordered.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

    Barrera, J., took no part.

    G.R. No. L-19419   September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING 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