Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > March 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23591 March 28, 1969 - LEONCIO YU LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23591. March 28, 1969.]

LEONCIO YU LIM, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Felix V . Barbers for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Celso P. Ylagan for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; BELIEF IN THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION; NO ADEQUATE PROOF THEREOF IN INSTANT CASE. — Mere naked statements of belief, without facts in support thereof, are neither competent nor adequate proof that the petitioner does in truth believe in the principles of the Philippine Constitution; nor is such belief established by the simple absence of derogatory information. The burden of duly proving the truth of the allegations in the petition lies on the petitioner.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LUCRATIVE TRADE OR OCCUPATION; SUCH REQUIREMENT WAS NOT SATISFIED IN INSTANT CASE. — An income amounting to an average of P172,00 a month does not satisfy the requirement of the naturalization law that the applicant should have a lucrative trade or occupations.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF PETITIONER’S INCOME INSUFFICIENT. — A perusal of the record discloses that the alleged salary of P120.00 a month from the Pan Pacific Remnant Industry rests solely on the petitioner’s testimony as a witness in his own behalf. No other witness corroborated this testimony as a witness in his own behalf. No other witness corroborated this testimony nor was any document presented to prove the alleged salary. Hence, said salary cannot be considered in the determination of his income (Yap v. Republic, L- 19832, August 23, 1966, 17 SCRA 956).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; P1,800.00 IS NOT ADDITIONAL INCOME. — The sum of P1,800.00 claimed by petitioner for being single is not additional income or earning of the taxpayer, and not at his disposal, but an exemption deductible from the net income for determining the amount of taxable income.

5. ID.; ID.; USE OF ALIAS BY PETITIONER; EFFECT UPON PETITION OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ALIAS. — Where the documents which are official certificates secured from various government agencies and offices indicate the name "Dodong" as an alias of the petitioner, not as his nickname, and no evidence has been adduced that his use of the alias has been legally authorized, nor was the alias mentioned in the petition for naturalization, the appealed decision granting the said petition should be reversed, and the petition dismissed.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


In this appeal from a grant of citizenship by the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, in its Naturalization Case No. 41, unto the petitioner Leoncio Yu Lim, the oppositor-appellant, Republic of the Philippines, seeks a reversal of the trial court’s decision on the grounds of insufficient income of, and unauthorized use of alias by, the said petitioner and the absence of evidence of his belief in the principles underlying the Constitution. We sustain the oppositor- appellant on all grounds.

The petitioner-appellee filed his petition for naturalization with the court a quo, on 29 January 1963, alleging, inter alia, that he is single and was born on 23 October 1931 in Surigao, Surigao del Norte; that he is a general merchant and the proprietor of Southern Bazar in the said municipality from which he derives an average annual income of P3,398.03; and that he is a "co-owner" and assistant manager of Pan Pacific Remnant Industry, a partnership with offices and factory in Quezon City and from which he derives as annual salary of P1,440.00.

At the trial, the government appeared and cross-examined the witnesses for the petitioner, but presented no evidence. On 5 March 1964, the court rendered judgment granting the petitioner’s application for naturalization. The oppositor government appealed.

In its decision, the trial court found that the applicant, Leoncio Yu Lim, earns a total of P4,833.00 a year, which amount is about the same as that alleged in the petition, which is P4,838.03. The court went on to state that in the year 1962 he earned P6,633.00 because he is allowed an exemption of P1,800.00 in his income tax, for being single, and this latter sum is at his disposal, and concluded that the petitioner’s income more than meets the requirements of the naturalization law.

A perusal of the record discloses that the alleged salary of P120.00 a month (or P1,440.00 a year) from the Pan Pacific Remnant Industry rests solely on the petitioner’s testimony as a witness in his own behalf. No other witness corroborated this testimony nor was any document presented to prove the alleged salary. Hence, said salary cannot be considered in the determination of his income (Yap v. Republic, L-19832, 23 August 1966, 17 SCRA 956), more so because the partnership, Pan Pacific Remnant Industry, was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only on 13 July 1962 (Exhibit "1- 2") and has not declared any dividend (Decision, Record on Appeal, page 15). Furthermore, the said partnership has its offices in Quezon City, while the alleged assistant manager, petitioner herein, is domiciled in Surigao, Surigao del Norte, a plain inconsistency that has been left unexplained.

With the alleged salary as assistant manager not proved, the computation of the oppositor government of the petitioner’s average annual income to be only P2,043.59 is correct: P1,006.76 for 1958, P846.51 for 1959, P2,923.07 for 1960 and P3,398.03 for 1962 (no income tax return for 1961 was shown). Such income, amounting to an average of P172.00 a month, does not satisfy the requirement of the naturalization law that the applicant should have a lucrative trade or occupation. In Dy v. Republic, L-20348, 24 December 1965; Uy v. Republic, L-20208, 30 June 1965; and Kock Tee Yap v. Republic, L- 20992, 14 May 1966, 17 SCRA, 16, this Court has already ruled that an income of P300.00 a month is inadequate, even if the applicant were unmarried.

The computation by the trial court of the petitioner’s alleged income in 1962, as amounting to P6,633.00, is erroneous. This figure was arrived at by adding the exemption of P1,800.00, for being single, plus the unproved salary of P1,440.00, to the net income of P3,398.00. The sum of P1,800.00 is not additional income or earning of the taxpayer, and not at his disposal, as the trial court entertained it to be, but an exemption deductible from the net income (from Schedule K in the tax return) for determining the amount of taxable income.

The petitioner-appellee disclaims the use of the alias "Dodong", claiming the same to be only his nickname; but his disclaimer is belied by the very documents that he adduced. These documents plainly indicate the name "Dodong" as an alias of the petitioner, not as his nickname, and are official certificates secured from various government agencies and offices (Exhibits "N", "O", "S", "S-2", "S-4", "S-6", "S-8", "S-10" and "T-3"). No evidence has been adduced that his use of the alias had been legally authorized, nor was the alias mentioned in the petition for naturalization.

Finally, the applicant and his witness simply asserted in court that the former "believes in the principles of the Constitution" without giving any particulars nor specifying the basis for the conclusion. We deem that mere naked statements of belief, without facts in support thereof, are neither competent nor adequate proof that the petitioner does in truth believe in the principles of the Philippine Constitution; nor is such belief established by the simple absence of derogatory information. The burden of duly proving the truth of the allegations in the petition lies on the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, and the petition for naturalization ordered dismissed. Costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26430 March 11, 1969 - ROSA GONZALEZ VDA. DE PALANCA, ET AL. v. CHUA KENG KIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29588 March 18, 1969 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26443 March 25, 1969 - MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26770 & L-26771 March 25, 1969 - SAN ILDEFONSO ELECTRIC PLANT, INC. v. BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24985 March 27, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. BERTITO D. DADIVAS

  • G.R. No. L-24399 March 28, 1969 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TEMPONGKO

  • G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635 March 28, 1969 - UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24699 March 28, 1969 - ABIGUEL REYES-GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-24775 March 28, 1969 - MARIANO C. ATEGA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-24982 March 28, 1969 - BERNARDINA FLORENDO v. BONIFACIA FLORENDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25333 March 28, 1969 - CONSOLIDATED WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25338 March 28, 1969 - UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25439 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: CHUA TAN CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25555 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MAGCAMIT

  • G.R. No. L-25618 March 28, 1969 - ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL. v. SIMEON GOPENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25878 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26153 March 28, 1969 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26487 March 28, 1969 - CONSTANTINA DE AGRAVIADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26572 March 28, 1969 - MORALES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26932 March 28, 1969 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26953 March 28, 1969 - ZENAIDA MEDINA v. VENANCIA L. MAKABALI

  • G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27100 March 28, 1969 - GERMAN S. MONTESA v. FELIPE ONOFRE DIRECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27120 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27189 March 28, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27231 March 28, 1969 - ALFONSO VISITACION v. VICTOR MANIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28113 March 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG, ET AL. v. PANGANDAPUN BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28734 March 28, 1969 - EMETERIO A. RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29199 March 28, 1969 - CLENIO L. ONDONA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29343 March 28, 1969 - FELIPE DE GUZMAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29610 March 28, 1969 - ALIM BALINDONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29458 March 28, 1969 - VIRGINIA F. PEREZ v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29684 March 28, 1969 - ARACELI V. MALAG v. RAMON DE LOS CIENTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29814 March 28, 1969 - SANTOS ANDAL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29894 March 28, 1969 - JESUS W. LAZATIN v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30058 March 28, 1969 - LUIS G. DE CASTRO v. JULIAN G. GINETE, ET AL.

  • Adm.Case No. 598 March 28, 1969 - AURORA SORIANO DELES v. VICENTE E. ARAGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20017 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: LEON TE POOT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21213 & L-21214 March 28, 1969 - GABRIEL ZARI, ET AL. v. JOSE R. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21291 March 28, 1969 - PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529 March 28, 1969 - ROSAURO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21953 March 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION GATIOAN v. SIXTO GAFFUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22007 March 28, 1969 - NATIONAL MIRROR FACTORY v. ISIDRA SUNGA VDA. DE ANURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22094 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22187 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO MAISUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22619 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: EMMANUEL LAI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22687 March 28, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22675 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PACIFIC COMMISSION HOUSE

  • G.R. No. L-22706 March 28, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, ET AL. v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22784 March 28, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23253 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: PACITA CHUA v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23591 March 28, 1969 - LEONCIO YU LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23654 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23792 March 28, 1969 - MODESTA JIMENEZ VDA. DE NOCETE v. PILAR OIRA

  • G.R. No. L-23942 March 28, 1969 - CARMEN DEVEZA, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.