Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > July 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15858 July 31, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15858. July 31, 1962.]

DY LAM GO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Opponent-Appellee.

Nicolas C. Benedicto, Jr., for Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor I. C. Borromeo for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; GOOD CONDUCT REQUIREMENT; PHRASE "DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF RESIDENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES," CONSTRUED. — The Revised Naturalization Law requires only that the vouching witness attest and testify that they know the applicant for naturalization to be a resident of the Philippines and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable for the period of time required by the law. They are not required to attest and testify that the applicant had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines. Besides, if the applicant is a native child of aliens or brought to this country when he was an infant, the period of infancy or childhood is not included in the phrase "during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines," because no one could attest and testify that the applicant had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner or otherwise during that period. Such period refers to that when a person becomes conscious and responsible for his acts and conduct in the community where he lives. Such conduct may be proved by other competent evidence not necessarily by the two vouching witnesses. Evidence that no derogatory police and court record exists against him would corroborate the testimony of the applicant as regards his proper and irreproachable conduct.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is an appeal from a decree entered on 22 June 1959 by the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the appellant’s petition to become a citizen of the Philippines on the sole ground that he has failed to prove that he had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living, as required by section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law. A motion for reconsideration filed on 7 July 1959 was denied.

A restatement of the evidence presented by the appellant is unnecessary because the only ground relied upon by the trial court is the one adverted above. Suffice it to say that the appellant has shown by his evidence that he has the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, as required and provided by law, to become a naturalized Filipino citizen, except the ground relied upon by the trial court.

It is true that section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires only that the vouching or credible witnesses attest and testify that they know the applicant for naturalization to be a resident of the Philippines and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable for the period of time required by the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by Republic Act No. 530). They are not required to attest and testify that the applicant had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living, as required by section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, unless they had known him for a period longer than the one stated in section 7 referred to above. Besides, if the applicant is a native child of aliens or brought to this country when he was an infant, the period of infancy or childhood is not included in the phrase "during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines," because no one could attest and testify that the applicant had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner or otherwise during that period. Such period refers to that when a person becomes conscious and responsible or his acts and conduct in the community where he lives. Such conduct may be proved by other competent evidence not necessarily by the two vouching witnesses. Evidence that no derogatory police and court record exists against him would corroborate the testimony of the applicant as regards his proper and irreproachable conduct. Having failed to prove the requisite provided for in section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization law, a reversal of the decree entered by the trial court denying the appellant’s petition could not be justified.

The decree appealed from denying the appellant’s petition for naturalization is affirmed, with costs against him.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




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






July-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 512 July 7, 1962 - ESTEBAN DEGAMO v. TRANQUILlNO O. CALO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17858-9 July 13, 1962 - MANUEL S. CAMUS v. PRICE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16176 July 19, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISMAEL LAMPITOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17146 July 20, 1962 - IN RE: KHO ENG POE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13341 July 21, 1962 - IN RE: JUSTINO DEE CU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16925 July 24, 1962 - FABIAN PUGEDA v. RAFAEL TRIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16959 July 24, 1962 - DONATA MONTEMAYOR v. EDUARDO D. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17024 July 24, 1962 - GAPAN FARMER’S COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. FE PARIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17990 July 24, 1962 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN CARLOS, PANGASINAN v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13045 July 30, 1962 - IN RE: HAO SU SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13654 July 30, 1962 - PROVINCIAL TREASURER, ET AL. v. JOSE AZCONA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17191 July 30, 1962 - JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS v. PEDRO CAMUS

  • G.R. No. L-17295 July 30, 1962 - ANG PUE & COMPANY, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

  • G.R. No. L-17508 July 30, 1962 - ROMEO ALMODIEL v. RAMON BLANCO, ET, AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17735 July 30, 1962 - CONRADO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-18496 July 30, 1962 - JOSE L. GONZALES v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. L-363 July 31, 1962 - IN RE: DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-10431 July 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA TONDEÑA INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12687 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMITERIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13717 31 July 31, 1962 - KOA GUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14717 July 31, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. CARMEN PREYSLER VDA. DE GARRIZ

  • G.R. No. L-14735 July 31, 1962 - LAO TECK SING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14753 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CUSTODIO REGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14986 July 31, 1962 - CORNELIO AMARO, ET AL. v. AMBROCIO SUMANGUIT

  • G.R. No. L-14990 July 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA PICCIO VDA. DE YUSAY, ET AL. v. LILIA POLI YUSAY-GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-15241 July 31, 1962 - SOLEDAD TAN v. CARLOS DIMAYUGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15749 July 31, 1962 - JOSEPHINE COTTON, ET AL. v. EUGENIO S. BALTAO

  • G.R. No. L-15498 July 31, 1962 - LUCAS ROQUE, ET AL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16050 July 31, 1962 - MANUEL GRIÑEN v. FILEMON R. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16306 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-16917 July 31, 1962 - PLARIDEL SOTTO v. QUINTILLANA SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-16946 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-16968 July 31, 1962 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17083 July 31, 1962 - TEODORICA REINARES v. JOSE ARRASTIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17165 July 31, 1962 - EMMA R. GENIZA, ET AL. v. HENRY SY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17175 July 31, 1962 - RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. MILAGROS BARRETO-DATU

  • G.R. No. L-17229 July 31, 1962 - TOMAS TY TION, ET AL. v. MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17283 July 31, 1962 - ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17366 July 31, 1962 - ALFREDO FRIAS, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO ESQUIVEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17427 July 31, 1962 - RODRIGO ACOSTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17441 July 31, 1962 - WELGO DICHOSO, ET AL. v. LAURA ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17483 July 31, 1962 - JOSE AGBULOS v. JOSE C. ALBERTO

  • G.R. No. L-17529 July 31, 1962 - JOSE V. NERI v. LIBRADO C. LIM

  • G.R. Nos. L-17608-09 July 31, 1962 - VICTORIANA SAGUCIO v. ADRIANO BULOS

  • G.R. No. L-17683 July 31, 1962 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. C.N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-17716 July 31, 1962 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. A. D. SANTOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18099 and L-18136 July 31, 1962 - MARIANO CORPUZ v. BENJAMIN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18175 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN LARGO

  • G.R. No. L-18412 July 31, 1962 - JOSE SANTOS v. CECILlA LOPEZ VDA. DE CERDENOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18733 July 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. PAREJA v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18814 July 31, 1962 - ANACLETO P. NAVARRO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-19022 July 31, 1962 - BENJAMIN P. PALOMIQUE v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19440 July 31, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19597 July 31, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14129 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. L-15858 July 31, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.