Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > June 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19914 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: TAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19914. June 23, 1965.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN SANG alias CHUA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. TAN SANG alias CHUA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Valeriano S. Kaamiño for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; EXEMPTION FROM DECLARATION OF INTENTION; ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN. — Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony showing enrollment of his nine children in schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any nationality or race, is sufficient proof to establish his exemption from filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

2. ID.; ID.; NON-PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL FATAL. — The non-presentation or non-inclusion in the petition for naturalization of the certificate of arrival is a fatal defect, and is not excused by the fact that said certificate was taken by the Bureau of Immigration which issued in lieu thereof an Immigrant Certificate of Residence. Petitioner should have secured a certified copy of his certificate of arrival.

3. ID.; ID.; NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ALIEN REGISTRATION LAW; BURDEN OF PROOF ON REPUBLIC. — Since compliance with the Alien Registration Act is not one of the items specifically required to be established in naturalization proceedings, non-compliance therewith is for the Republic to prove and the fact that petitioner did not prove compliance as to his minor children is not unfavorable to his petition.

4. ID.; ID.; ANNUAL INCOME OF P5,000 NOT LUCRATIVE. — An annual average income of P5,000 for a petitioner for naturalization with a wife and nine children, four of whom are unmarried minors, is not lucrative under the Naturalization Law.

5. ID.; ID.; CHARACTER WITNESSES’ PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS DEALINGS ALONE WITH PETITIONER NOT SUFFICIENT QUALIFICATION. — For petitioner’s character witness to be qualified to vouch for his good moral character, they must have intimate knowledge of the applicant. Professional or business dealings alone do not provide a sufficient basis for deriving such knowledge.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Petitioner filed on September 24, 1960 an application for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. On September 11, 1961, the Republic filed an opposition thereto. Reply to the opposition was submitted on October 14, 1961. After trial the court rendered, on April 12, 1962, its decision finding petitioner entitled to naturalization.

The Republic appealed, raising the following questions: (1) Is petitioner exempt from filing a declaration of intention? (2) Is the petition invalid for non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival? (3) Is petitioner’s conduct irreproachable, there being no proof of his compliance with the Alien Registration Law in regard to his minor children? (4) Does petitioner have a lucrative trade, profession or occupation? and (5) Are petitioner’s character witnesses credible persons?

1. Petitioner, a citizen of the Republic of China was born in Yung Eh, China on July 13, 1902. He arrived in Cebu on board S.S. "Sapphiro" on November 21, 1912. Since then he has resided in Cebu and in Ozamis City, in the latter since 1950. He is married, has nine children, of whom two are already married. At the time the petition was filed, four of his unmarried children were still minors.

Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony shows enrollment of his nine children in schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any nationality or race (Tsn., p. 16).

Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, therefore, exempts petitioner from filing a declaration of intention:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Persons . . . who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application, may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Petitioner admittedly did not present his certificate of arrival nor did he include the same as part of his petition. Such a defect is fatal (Charm Chan v. Republic, L-14460, June 30, 1960).

It is argued on petitioner’s behalf that the Bureau of Immigration took his certificate of arrival from him, issuing in lieu thereof an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (Exh. C). The statute, however, expressly requires inclusion of the certificate of arrival as part of the petition (Sec. 7 Revised Naturalization Law) and said requirement is mandatory (Charm Chan v. Republic, supra). Petitioner should have secured a certified copy of his certificate of arrival if - one had really been issued - and adduced the same as required by law.

3. Petitioner, it is true, did not prove that he complied with the Alien Registration Law (RA 562) as to his minor children. The same, however, is not unfavorable to his petition. It was for the Republic to prove that he failed to comply with it, since compliance with the Alien Registration Act is not one of the items specifically required to be established in naturalization proceedings.

4. Petitioner, as stated, is married, has nine children, four of whom, as of the time petition was filed, were still unmarried minors.

The source of petitioner’s income is his business, the Sin Beng Trading. Per his testimony, he earns an average of P5,000.00 annually (Tsn., pp. 11, 21). Per his income tax returns his earnings were:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1960 Gross Income P22,001.11

Net Income P3,790.99

1959 Gross Income P20,174.30

Net Income P4,779.75

1958 Gross Income P21,462.57

Net Income P8,019.40

(Exhs. H, H-1 and H-2)

It is quite obvious, therefore, that by petitioner’s own evidence he does not possess the qualification of a lucrative trade, profession or occupation. In Koa Gui v. Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962, an annual income of P5,980.00 was held insufficient for a married applicant with three children. And in Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963, an income of P6,300.00 a year was likewise held inadequate for a married petitioner with but one child.

5. Petitioner’s character witnesses were Maximo Lago and Gregorio Calit. Lago was the City Treasurer of Ozamiz. Calit was the Bureau of Internal Revenue examiner who handled the books of petitioner’s Sin Beng Trading. Nowhere in their testimonies did they show-personal, intimate knowledge of petitioner. Calit admitted he was not close with petitioner’s family and could not state the name of petitioner’s wife (Tsn., p. 10). All that can be gathered from said character witnesses as to their relationship with petitioner is that the same was on a professional, business level. We have already stated, time and again, that for petitioner’s character witnesses to be qualified to vouch for his good moral character, they must have intimate knowledge of the applicant (Cuaki Tan Si v. Republic, L 18006, October 31, 1962). Professional or business dealings alone do not provide a sufficient basis for deriving such knowledge (Uy v. Republic, L-19578, October 27, 1964).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition for naturalization is denied, with costs against appellee. It is so ordered.

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

Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17647 June 16, 1965 - HERMINIA GODUCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19201 June 16, 1965 - REV. FR. CASIMIRO LLADOC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17214 June 21, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO ALIPIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19836 June 21, 1965 - GO A. LENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16999 June 22, 1965 - IN RE: CHENG KIAT GIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19111 June 22, 1965 - IN RE: CHIU BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20379 June 22, 1965 - IN RE: JOSE BERMAS, SR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20489 June 22, 1965 - BOMBAY DEPT. STORE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-20716 June 22, 1965 - AGUSTIN DE AUSTRIA, ET AL v. HON. AGAPITO CONCHU

  • G.R. Nos. L-20847-9 June 22, 1965 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17189 June 22, 1965 - ANDRES CASTILLO v. JUAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17644 June 22, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO Y. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17650 June 22, 1965 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17913 June 22, 1965 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. HON. JOSE M. MOYA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18569 June 22, 1965 - PLACIDO ANTONIO, ET AL. v. PETRONILO JACINTO

  • G.R. No. L-20288 June 22, 1965 - JOSE CASARIA, ET AL v. RICARDO ROSALES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22236 June 22, 1965 - GSIS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17323 June 23, 1965 - CLAUDIO GABUTAS v. GUIDO D. CASTELLANES

  • G.R. No. L-19432 June 23, 1965 - COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO. INC. v. PLARIDEL LUMBER CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19913 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: YU TI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19914 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: TAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19915 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: TANG KONG KIAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19916 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: ALEXANDER LIM UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20021 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: SERGIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20136 June 23, 1965 - IN RE: JOSE A. SANTOS Y DIAZ v. ANATOLIO BUENCONSEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20431 June 23, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO LIBED, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20675 June 23, 1965 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TEODORO VELANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20843 June 23, 1965 - EDWARD J. NELL CO. v. RICARDO CUBACUB, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20987 June 23, 1965 - PHIL. LAND-AIR SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21470 June 23, 1965 - CONSUELO VDA. DE PRIETO v. PACIENCIA REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21856 June 23, 1965 - BENJAMIN BELISARIO v. MARCELO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16636 June 24, 1965 - MLA. SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. BATH CONSTRUCTlON & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19670 June 24, 1965 - PEDRO D. PAMINTUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-16641 June 24, 1965 - FE RECIDO, ET AL v. ALFONSO T. REFASO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19897 June 24, 1965 - JOAQUIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20824 & L-22218 June 24, 1965 - BERNARDINO GUERRERO & ASSOCIATES v. FRANCISCO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-19898 June 28, 1965 - IN RE: SEE YEK TEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20830 June 28, 1965 - HILARIO GANANCIAL, ET AL v. LEONARDO ATILLO

  • G.R. No. L-12351 June 29, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FELIX M. ICAMEN

  • G.R. No. L-18659 June 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTIPAS SAGARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19851 June 29, 1965 - YU BAN CHUAN v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20787-8 June 29, 1965 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-21071 June 29, 1965 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. DANIEL PEREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24406 June 29, 1965 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15938 June 30, 1965 - CARMELINO DADAY, ET AL v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-16078-79 June 30, 1965 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16236 June 30, 1965 - IRINEO S. BALTAZAR v. LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16767 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: TAN NGA KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16829 June 30, 1965 - OLEGARIO BRITO, ET AL v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-17287 June 30, 1965 - JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL v. EPIFANIO T. VILLEGAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17885 June 30, 1965 - GABRIEL P. PRIETO v. MEDEN ARROYO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18682 June 30, 1965 - NICOLAS DE LOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19157 June 30, 1965 - INDIAN COMMERCIAL CO. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19281 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: PEDRO SATILLON, ET AL v. PERFECTA MIRANDA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19348 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: SEE HO KIAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19380 June 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GASPAR ASILUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19636 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19780 June 30, 1965 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. CECILIO MONTEMAYOR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19844 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: FRANK YU TIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20145 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: ONG SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20208 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20462 June 30, 1965 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20499 June 30, 1965 - BALANGA POWER PLANT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20503 June 30, 1965 - PHIL. ASSO. OF GOV. RETIREES, INC. v. GSIS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23004 June 30, 1965 - MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23244 June 30, 1965 - CHAMBER OF AGRI. & NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE PHILS., ET AL v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-24671 June 30, 1965 - FELICULO ISRAEL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL