February 1967 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > February 1967 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-22077 February 18, 1967 - ALFREDO K. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-22077. February 18, 1967.]
ALFREDO K. TAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Solicitor General for oppositor and Appellant.
Manuel Soriano for petitioner and appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; CHARACTER WITNESSES; LACK OF SHOWING THAT WITNESSES WERE IN MANILA DURING PERIOD OF PETITIONER’S STAY DISQUALIFIES WITNESSES. — Since neither of the two witnesses were shown to have been in Manila during the period of petitioner’s stay (7 years), there is a sizeable gap during which there is no evidence of petitioner’s irreproachable conduct, which is fatal to his petition.
2. ID.; PETITION IS INVALID FOR FAILURE TO STATE ALL PLACES OF PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE. — The petition is invalid in failing to disclose that petitioner resided in Manila, in addition to his present residence in Butuan, a deficiency that violated Section 7 of the Naturalization Law (Keng Giok v. Republic, G.R. No. L-13347, August. 31, 1961; Go Bon v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16813, December 27, 1963; Ong Ping Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19575, Feb. 26, 1965).
3. ID.; FAILURE TO PROVE BIRTH IN PHILIPPINES FATAL TO PETITION. — Petitioner’s having been born in the Philippines is not duly authenticated by competent evidence. Such failure of proof is fatal to the petition (Tan Kong Kiat v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19915, June 23, 1965).
4. ID.; SALARY OF P300 MONTHLY, PLUS ANNUAL BONUS OF P1,000 NOT LUCRATIVE INCOME. — Petitioner’s monthly income of P300, plus annual bonus of P1,000 from his employer does not satisfactorily establish possession by him of lucrative income as required by law.
2. ID.; PETITION IS INVALID FOR FAILURE TO STATE ALL PLACES OF PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE. — The petition is invalid in failing to disclose that petitioner resided in Manila, in addition to his present residence in Butuan, a deficiency that violated Section 7 of the Naturalization Law (Keng Giok v. Republic, G.R. No. L-13347, August. 31, 1961; Go Bon v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16813, December 27, 1963; Ong Ping Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19575, Feb. 26, 1965).
3. ID.; FAILURE TO PROVE BIRTH IN PHILIPPINES FATAL TO PETITION. — Petitioner’s having been born in the Philippines is not duly authenticated by competent evidence. Such failure of proof is fatal to the petition (Tan Kong Kiat v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19915, June 23, 1965).
4. ID.; SALARY OF P300 MONTHLY, PLUS ANNUAL BONUS OF P1,000 NOT LUCRATIVE INCOME. — Petitioner’s monthly income of P300, plus annual bonus of P1,000 from his employer does not satisfactorily establish possession by him of lucrative income as required by law.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The Government seeks review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan in Naturalization Case No. 31 of that Court, declaring Alfredo K. Tan, upon the latter’s petition, to be qualified to assume Filipino citizenship, thereby overruling the objections of the City Attorney of Butuan City.
The petition for naturalization was filed on January 3, 1962 by Alfredo K. Tan, single, Chinese, allegedly born of Tan Diam Him and Khio Shio Chit in Butuan City on November 28, 1938. At the time he was registered as permanent resident alien in the Bureau of Immigration. Petitioner’s application was supported by the affidavits of character witnesses Jose Mondejar and Restituto Sintos, residents of Butuan City. The three testified at the trial, and after reception of the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, the trial court decided, on June 28, 1963, that the applicant possessed all the qualifications, and had none of the disqualifications, prescribed by the naturalization laws.
Grounds for the state’s appeal are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) That the character witnesses were not credible persons;
(2) That the petition for naturalization failed to state all of petitioner’s former places of residence;
(3) That the petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish that he was born in the Philippines;
(4) That petitioner’s declaration of intention was defective; and
(5) Petitioner had no lucrative income.
We find the government’s objections supported by the record.
Witness Jose Mondejar, a foreman of the New Asia Lumber Company in Butuan City, where petitioner worked as a salesman since 1960 and petitioner’s father was the cashier, asserted that petitioner had studied in Manila for seven years (tsn., p. 108). Since neither Mondejar nor his co-witness Sintos was shown to have been in Manila during the period of petitioner’s stay, we are faced with a sizeable gap during which there is no evidence of petitioner’s irreproachable conduct. According to Sintos, a school director, he met petitioner once a year, while the latter was studying in Manila, and such rare encounters fail to qualify the witnesses to testify on petitioner’s moral character during those years that he was away from Butuan.
Considering that petitioner appears closely intimate with Mondejar’s children, the influential position of petitioner’s father over a lower employee, and the testimony of Sintos in court, to the effect that he became acquainted with petitioner in 1946, while in the affidavit accompanying the petition this witness asserted having known petitioner since birth (1938), neither of the character witnesses can be regarded as trustworthy and reliable insurers of the applicant’s character; hence they are not the credible witnesses required by law. 1
The petition is, likewise, invalid in failing to disclose that petitioner had resided in Manila, as admitted by him, in addition to his present residence in Butuan, a deficiency that violated section 7 of the Naturalization law. 2
The fact of applicant’s having been born in the Philippines is not duly authenticated by competent evidence. Petitioner himself, of course, was not qualified to give evidence on this point, and the alleged copy of the entry in the Civil Register was not properly certified, and hence, was erroneously admitted in evidence and is without probative value. His parents did not testify. The same thing can be stated of his proof of lawful entry for permanent residence, that should accompany his declaration of intention. The photographic copies submitted by him are not certified, nor was their accuracy vouched for by competent witnesses. Such failure of proof is fatal to the petition (Tan Kong Kiat v. Republic, L-19915, June 23, 1965).
Finally, to establish his financial qualifications, the applicant-appellee claimed to be receiving P300.00 a month, plus annual bonus of P1,000.00 from his employer, the New Asia Lumber; in addition, he asserted to having purchased a house, assessed at P17,380.00, from the same employer in December, 1961. It is markworthy that applicant could not show any deed of sale of the house in his favor; he exhibited a 1962 assessment in his favor, but a tax assessment is no proof of ownership (Province of Camarines Sur v. Director of Lands, 64 Phil. 600). He did not call any authorized officer of the vendor company to prove the alleged conveyance. Such deficiencies in evidence render his assertions of title highly doubtful, and they infirm the probative value of his entire testimony. We have also held that a bonus, not being stable earnings, should not be included in computing lucrative income 3; and while applicant submitted evidence that his salary had been increased to P500.00 monthly, from March, 1962 onwards, this increase must be disregarded, being subsequent to the filing of the application for citizenship. 4 We conclude that petitioner has not satisfactorily established possession of lucrative income, as required by law.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from, admitting appellee Alfredo K. Tan to Philippine citizenship, is reversed, and the application is ordered dismissed. Appellee shall pay the costs in all instances.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
The petition for naturalization was filed on January 3, 1962 by Alfredo K. Tan, single, Chinese, allegedly born of Tan Diam Him and Khio Shio Chit in Butuan City on November 28, 1938. At the time he was registered as permanent resident alien in the Bureau of Immigration. Petitioner’s application was supported by the affidavits of character witnesses Jose Mondejar and Restituto Sintos, residents of Butuan City. The three testified at the trial, and after reception of the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, the trial court decided, on June 28, 1963, that the applicant possessed all the qualifications, and had none of the disqualifications, prescribed by the naturalization laws.
Grounds for the state’s appeal are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) That the character witnesses were not credible persons;
(2) That the petition for naturalization failed to state all of petitioner’s former places of residence;
(3) That the petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish that he was born in the Philippines;
(4) That petitioner’s declaration of intention was defective; and
(5) Petitioner had no lucrative income.
We find the government’s objections supported by the record.
Witness Jose Mondejar, a foreman of the New Asia Lumber Company in Butuan City, where petitioner worked as a salesman since 1960 and petitioner’s father was the cashier, asserted that petitioner had studied in Manila for seven years (tsn., p. 108). Since neither Mondejar nor his co-witness Sintos was shown to have been in Manila during the period of petitioner’s stay, we are faced with a sizeable gap during which there is no evidence of petitioner’s irreproachable conduct. According to Sintos, a school director, he met petitioner once a year, while the latter was studying in Manila, and such rare encounters fail to qualify the witnesses to testify on petitioner’s moral character during those years that he was away from Butuan.
Considering that petitioner appears closely intimate with Mondejar’s children, the influential position of petitioner’s father over a lower employee, and the testimony of Sintos in court, to the effect that he became acquainted with petitioner in 1946, while in the affidavit accompanying the petition this witness asserted having known petitioner since birth (1938), neither of the character witnesses can be regarded as trustworthy and reliable insurers of the applicant’s character; hence they are not the credible witnesses required by law. 1
The petition is, likewise, invalid in failing to disclose that petitioner had resided in Manila, as admitted by him, in addition to his present residence in Butuan, a deficiency that violated section 7 of the Naturalization law. 2
The fact of applicant’s having been born in the Philippines is not duly authenticated by competent evidence. Petitioner himself, of course, was not qualified to give evidence on this point, and the alleged copy of the entry in the Civil Register was not properly certified, and hence, was erroneously admitted in evidence and is without probative value. His parents did not testify. The same thing can be stated of his proof of lawful entry for permanent residence, that should accompany his declaration of intention. The photographic copies submitted by him are not certified, nor was their accuracy vouched for by competent witnesses. Such failure of proof is fatal to the petition (Tan Kong Kiat v. Republic, L-19915, June 23, 1965).
Finally, to establish his financial qualifications, the applicant-appellee claimed to be receiving P300.00 a month, plus annual bonus of P1,000.00 from his employer, the New Asia Lumber; in addition, he asserted to having purchased a house, assessed at P17,380.00, from the same employer in December, 1961. It is markworthy that applicant could not show any deed of sale of the house in his favor; he exhibited a 1962 assessment in his favor, but a tax assessment is no proof of ownership (Province of Camarines Sur v. Director of Lands, 64 Phil. 600). He did not call any authorized officer of the vendor company to prove the alleged conveyance. Such deficiencies in evidence render his assertions of title highly doubtful, and they infirm the probative value of his entire testimony. We have also held that a bonus, not being stable earnings, should not be included in computing lucrative income 3; and while applicant submitted evidence that his salary had been increased to P500.00 monthly, from March, 1962 onwards, this increase must be disregarded, being subsequent to the filing of the application for citizenship. 4 We conclude that petitioner has not satisfactorily established possession of lucrative income, as required by law.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from, admitting appellee Alfredo K. Tan to Philippine citizenship, is reversed, and the application is ordered dismissed. Appellee shall pay the costs in all instances.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Cu v. Republic, 89 Phil. 473; Tan v. Republic, L-19694, March 30, 1965; Ong v. Republic, L-10642, May 30, 1958; Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, L-18550, February 26, 1964; Saw Cen v. Republic, L-20310, April 80, 1965).
2. Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, Aug. 31, 1961; Go Bon v. Republic, L-16813, December 27, 1963; Ong Ping Seng v. Republic, L- 19575, Feb. 26, 1965).
3. To chip v. Republic, L-19637, Feb. 26, 1965; Uy v. Republic L-20208, June 30, 1965.
4. Deetuanka v. Republic, L-12981, January 29, 1960; Xu Ti v. Republic, L-19913, June 23, 1965.
