October 1966 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > October 1966 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-22076 October 29, 1966 IN RE: DY BU SIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-22076. October 29, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, DY BU SIA alias FILADELFO DY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Lope C. Quimbo for petitioner and appellee.
Solicitor General for oppositor and appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; PUBLICATION MUST BE IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION. — Even if it was the court itself that ordered the publication of the petition for naturalization in the newspaper, Nueva Era, it is still incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the "Nueva Era" has a general circulation in the province of Samar. Where there is no such showing then the requirement of law as to publication is not satisfied.
2. ID.; EFFECT OF USE OF ALIAS. — Where the petition itself and several documents submitted in evidence by the petitioner shows that petitioner uses the name "Filadelfo Dy" as an alias, such use, without authority, disqualifies him for naturalization.
3. ID.; REQUIREMENT OF LUCRATIVE INCOME. — Petitioner’s income of P4,612.10 at the time he filed his petition, with a wife and six children to support, does not satisfy the law that requires applicants to have a lucrative occupation or calling.
4. ID.; PREVIOUS PLACE OF RESIDENCE MUST BE STATED IN THE PETITION. — Failure to state in his petition that he had previously resided in Lucena, Quezon (as testified to by petitioner, himself) makes the petition fatally defective.
2. ID.; EFFECT OF USE OF ALIAS. — Where the petition itself and several documents submitted in evidence by the petitioner shows that petitioner uses the name "Filadelfo Dy" as an alias, such use, without authority, disqualifies him for naturalization.
3. ID.; REQUIREMENT OF LUCRATIVE INCOME. — Petitioner’s income of P4,612.10 at the time he filed his petition, with a wife and six children to support, does not satisfy the law that requires applicants to have a lucrative occupation or calling.
4. ID.; PREVIOUS PLACE OF RESIDENCE MUST BE STATED IN THE PETITION. — Failure to state in his petition that he had previously resided in Lucena, Quezon (as testified to by petitioner, himself) makes the petition fatally defective.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Petitioner-appellee Dy Bu Sia, alias Filadelfo Dy, a Chinese, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Samar, on 10 December 1959. The petition was published in the "Nueva Era" in its issue of 18 and 25 January and 1 February 1960 and also in Nos. 47, 48 and 49, Volume 55, of the Official Gazette (issues of 23, 30 November and 7 December 1959, respectively.) 1
After hearing, the lower court, on 18 May 1961, granted the petition. Two (2) years thereafter, on motion by the petitioner, and after reception of evidence, the court ordered, on 21 August 1963, the allowance of the petitioners’ oath-taking as a Filipino citizen.
On the same day, 21 August 1963, oppositor Republic of the Philippines appealed, thereby opening to inquiry petitioner’s qualifications (Cheng alias Lim v. Republic, L-20013, 30 March 1965; Lim alias Lim Eng Chuan v. Republic, L-21193, 30 Sept. 1966).
The evidence for the petitioner shows that he was born on 3 January 1927 in Ching Kang, China, and came to the Philippines in 1929; that he is married to Dorotea Tan, a Chinese, with whom he has six (6) children; that for 1959 he had an income of P4,612.10, as an employee of Tan Chuan of Catbalogan, Samar, and as a partner in a retail store at Lucena, Quezon.
It is argued for the government that the petition was not published, as required by law, in that there was no showing that the "Nueva Era" has general circulation in the province of Samar. In reply, the petitioner states that he is not to blame for the publication in the said newspaper because it was the lower court that ordered the publication and which was not of the petitioner’s choosing; that the lower court took judicial notice of the general circulation of the newspaper in the province and is presumed to have duly complied with its duties when it issued its order to publish the notice in the "Nueva Era."
The issue is not who is to blame for the publication or the application of the presumption of compliance with a duty but whether the publication requirement of the law was satisfied. Here, it was not. In Tan Ten Koc v. Republic, L-18344, 28 February 1964, this Court ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The law requires that the newspaper in which the petition for naturalization is to be published must be of general circulation in the province where petitioner resides. While, in the instant case, there is an affidavit executed by the Editor of the Nueva Era to the effect that the said newspaper is of general circulation in the Philippines, this statement is not sufficient proof that there has been compliance with the law. Positive evidence must be presented to prove that the Nueva Era is of general circulation in Samar, and it is incumbent upon petitioner to present such evidence." (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, the naturalization of herein petitioner is not warranted in law for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) The petition itself and the several documents submitted in evidence by the petitioner, Exhibits "A-1", "B", "B-1", "B-2", "F", "G", "N", "N-3", "N-4", "N-6", "N-8", and "N-11", attest to the fact that Dy Bu Sia uses the name "Filadelfo Dy", not as a baptismal name, as he presently claims, but as an alias. Such use, without authority, disqualifies him for naturalization (Tan v. Republic, L-19580, 30 April 1965; Chiu Bok v. Republic, L-19111, 22 June 1965).
(b) Petitioner’s income of P4,612.10 at the time he filed his petition, with a wife and six (6) children to support, does not satisfy the law that requires applicants to have a lucrative occupation or calling (Chiu Bok v. Republic, L-19111, 22 June 1965; Chua Eng Hok v. Republic, L-20479, 29 October 1965).
(c) The petitioner testified that, aside from his present residence at Catbalogan, Samar, he had previously resided or stayed in Lucena, Quezon, Gandara and Tarongan, Samar. However, he failed to state the aforesaid previous places of residence in his petition. The petition is, therefore, fatally defective (Cheng v. Republic, L-20013, 30 March 1965).
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision granting the petition for naturalization and the order granting Filipino citizenship and allowing the petitioner to take his oath, dated 21 August 1963, are hereby reversed and the petition dismissed, with costs against the Petitioner-Appellee.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
After hearing, the lower court, on 18 May 1961, granted the petition. Two (2) years thereafter, on motion by the petitioner, and after reception of evidence, the court ordered, on 21 August 1963, the allowance of the petitioners’ oath-taking as a Filipino citizen.
On the same day, 21 August 1963, oppositor Republic of the Philippines appealed, thereby opening to inquiry petitioner’s qualifications (Cheng alias Lim v. Republic, L-20013, 30 March 1965; Lim alias Lim Eng Chuan v. Republic, L-21193, 30 Sept. 1966).
The evidence for the petitioner shows that he was born on 3 January 1927 in Ching Kang, China, and came to the Philippines in 1929; that he is married to Dorotea Tan, a Chinese, with whom he has six (6) children; that for 1959 he had an income of P4,612.10, as an employee of Tan Chuan of Catbalogan, Samar, and as a partner in a retail store at Lucena, Quezon.
It is argued for the government that the petition was not published, as required by law, in that there was no showing that the "Nueva Era" has general circulation in the province of Samar. In reply, the petitioner states that he is not to blame for the publication in the said newspaper because it was the lower court that ordered the publication and which was not of the petitioner’s choosing; that the lower court took judicial notice of the general circulation of the newspaper in the province and is presumed to have duly complied with its duties when it issued its order to publish the notice in the "Nueva Era."
The issue is not who is to blame for the publication or the application of the presumption of compliance with a duty but whether the publication requirement of the law was satisfied. Here, it was not. In Tan Ten Koc v. Republic, L-18344, 28 February 1964, this Court ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The law requires that the newspaper in which the petition for naturalization is to be published must be of general circulation in the province where petitioner resides. While, in the instant case, there is an affidavit executed by the Editor of the Nueva Era to the effect that the said newspaper is of general circulation in the Philippines, this statement is not sufficient proof that there has been compliance with the law. Positive evidence must be presented to prove that the Nueva Era is of general circulation in Samar, and it is incumbent upon petitioner to present such evidence." (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, the naturalization of herein petitioner is not warranted in law for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) The petition itself and the several documents submitted in evidence by the petitioner, Exhibits "A-1", "B", "B-1", "B-2", "F", "G", "N", "N-3", "N-4", "N-6", "N-8", and "N-11", attest to the fact that Dy Bu Sia uses the name "Filadelfo Dy", not as a baptismal name, as he presently claims, but as an alias. Such use, without authority, disqualifies him for naturalization (Tan v. Republic, L-19580, 30 April 1965; Chiu Bok v. Republic, L-19111, 22 June 1965).
(b) Petitioner’s income of P4,612.10 at the time he filed his petition, with a wife and six (6) children to support, does not satisfy the law that requires applicants to have a lucrative occupation or calling (Chiu Bok v. Republic, L-19111, 22 June 1965; Chua Eng Hok v. Republic, L-20479, 29 October 1965).
(c) The petitioner testified that, aside from his present residence at Catbalogan, Samar, he had previously resided or stayed in Lucena, Quezon, Gandara and Tarongan, Samar. However, he failed to state the aforesaid previous places of residence in his petition. The petition is, therefore, fatally defective (Cheng v. Republic, L-20013, 30 March 1965).
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision granting the petition for naturalization and the order granting Filipino citizenship and allowing the petitioner to take his oath, dated 21 August 1963, are hereby reversed and the petition dismissed, with costs against the Petitioner-Appellee.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
Endnotes:
1. Observing that the notice of the petition was apparently published prior to the filing of the petition, the lower court requested an explanation by the Director of Printing. The bureau replied that at the time the article was received for publication, the Off. Gaz. was very much behind its regular issue so that the official releases of its issues did not coincide with their publication, thus, the 23 Nov. 1959 issue was released only on 16 February 1960, the 30 November 1959 issue on 24 Feb. 1960, and the 7 Dec. 1959 issue on 2 March 1960 (Exhibit "B-1").
