Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22390. February 29, 1968.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF NATURALIZATION OF TAN KHE SHING alias TAN KEE SING. PAN KHE SHING alias TAN KEE SING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Leodegario L. Mogol and Pablo C. Tolentino for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Appeal taken by the Solicitor General from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque granting the petition of Tan Khe Shing alias Tan Kee Sing to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines.

The petitioner, a citizen of the Republic of China, was born on August 31, 1925 in Fukien, China. He arrived at the port of Manila on November 19, 1929, on board the vessel SS SUSANA. He was in Manila for one week, then proceeded to Mogpog, Marinduque, where he stayed for another week and finally went to Boac, Marinduque, where he established his legal residence. He finished his primary grades at the primary school in Boac, Marinduque, his elementary grades at the Chinese Republican School, and his high school course at the Anglo- Chinese School in Manila, where he lived for a period of two to three years. On January 29, 1950, in the City of Manila, he contracted marriage with So Muy Hun, another Chinese, with whom he has six children. Three of these children who were at school age at the time of the hearing of the petition, namely, Antonio, Alfredo, and Webster, were enrolled and studying at the Crusader’s Academy located at 649 Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila.

The petitioner has a general merchandise store at the poblacion of Boac, Marinduque, with a working capital of P30,000,00 and from which he derived an annual income of from P6,000.0 to P7,000.00 in the years 1960 and 1961, and more or less P9,000.00 in the year 1962.

Two witnesses, Ex-Governor Miguel M. Manguerra and Ex-Mayor Jose M. Madrigal, both residents of Boac, Marinduque, vouched for petitioner’s good moral character and irreproachable conduct.

In this appeal, the Solicitor General alleges that the Court a quo erred: (1) in not finding that the petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs and traditions; and (2) in not finding that petitioner has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner by his continuous use of an alias without judicial authority.

In support of the first assigned error, the Solicitor General points out in his brief:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . All the children of the petitioner who are of school age are now presently enrolled and studying at the Crusader’s Academy. While it is true that said school is recognized by the government and is a branch of the San Juan de Letran College, it cannot also be denied that most of the students in said school are the children of Chinese nationals the same being located in the center of the teeming Chinese district of Binondo."cralaw virtua1aw library

While the inference of the Solicitor General may be correct, there is nothing in the record to show that the students in the Crusader’s Academy are predominantly children of Chinese nationals. Indeed, if there had been a showing to that effect the enrollment of petitioner’s children in said school would adversely reflect on his sincerity to embrace Filipino Customs and traditions. 1 We cannot, therefore, rule that the trial court erred on this particular point.

As regards the second assigned error, petitioner admits that in almost all the documentary evidences presented by him the name Tan Khe Shing alias Tan Kee Sing appears; but contends that this fact does not constitute a violation of law which may disqualify him from acquiring Filipino citizenship because: (1) his use of the alias Tan Kee Sing is one of the exceptions provided for in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 142, petitioner having used said alias since childhood when he entered the public schools; and (2) that he has only one "name", which name has been spelled in two different ways, to wit: Tan Khe Shing and Tan Kee Sing.

On direct examination petitioner tried to explain the use of the alias Tan Kee Sing by stating that when he was enrolled in the primary school, his teacher misspelled his name and from that time on he has adopted the same. However, except for petitioner’s own testimony, no other evidence was introduced to show that in the primary grades he was using and/or was known by the name Tan Kee Sing. Inasmuch as no corroborative evidence was adduced to show the veracity of his assertion, petitioner’s contention cannot be sustained on the first ground.

Regarding the second ground relied upon by the petitioner, Tan Kee Sing cannot be considered as just another way of spelling Tan Khe Shing. It is a different name altogether, an alias in contemplation of law, since "the difference of one letter in a name may mean the distinction of identity of one person with that of another" (Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16384, April 26, 1962; Khan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19709, Sept. 30, 1964).

In view thereof, we find that the petitioner has used the alias Tan Kee Sing in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142, a ground sufficient to warrant the denial of a petition for naturalization. 2

Inasmuch as "this case is open for review in its entirety by this Court regardless of whether or not objection had been made in connection with a particular point during the proceedings below" (Go In Ty v. Republic, G.R. L-17919, July 30, 1966, Kwock How v. Republic, G.R. L-18521, Jan. 30, 1964, Tio Tek Chai v. Republic, G.R. L-19112, Oct. 30, 1964), we note that the petition of applicant is fatally defective on at least two more points: (1) the notice and publication requirements of the law were not complied with, and (2) the petition failed to state applicant’s former place of residence.

Other than the affidavit of the Director-Publisher of the "NUEVA ERA" to the effect that said newspaper was of general circulation in the Philippines, there is no evidence that it was of general circulation in the province of Marinduque. In the case of Tan Ten Kock v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18344, February 28, 1964 and reiterated in the case of Tan Sen v. Republic, G.R. No. L-23181, Oct. 24, 1967, this Court said: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.

"The purpose of the law in requiring publication of the notice is to inform those officers and the public in general of the filing of such a petition in order that the public officers and private citizens supposed to be acquainted with the petitioner may furnish the Solicitor General or the provincial fiscal with such necessary information and evidence as there may be against the petitioner (Anti- Chinese League of the Phil. v. Alfonso Felix, etc., Et Al., G.R. No. L-998, February 20, 1947, 77 Phil. 1012). Considering then that the Nueva Era is published in Spanish and not in English or in the dialect of Samar, which are more commonly used in petitioner’s province of residence, and that there has been no positive and direct proof that it is generally circulated in said province, the publication made therein may not be taken as having served the objective of the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Regarding the second point, the petitioner on cross-examination stated that he stayed at the Anglo-Chinese School, which is located in Manila, from two to three years. However, his petition does not state that he resided in Manila at any time. It is settled that such failure to mention petitioner’s former residence affects the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case" (O Ku Phuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L- 23406, August 31, 1967). This Court had occasion to explain this point, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In a petition for naturalization, petitioner should set forth not only his present place of residence but also his "former places of residence." (Section 7, Revised Naturalization Law). The statement of all the places of residence, past and present, is required to inform the general public and to enable it to register its protest through the administrative agencies of the Government, if warranted, against petitioner’s desire to embrace citizenship. For petitioner to omit some of his previous residence is to withhold full opportunity for intelligent objection and virtually to defeat the purpose of the law. (Lo v. Republic, G.R. L-15919, May 19, 1961; Qua v. Republic, G.R. L-19834, October 27, 1964; Go v. Republic, G.R. L- 20558, March 31, 1965; Tan v. Republic, G.R. L-22207, May 30, 1966).

Nor would petitioner be right by his contention that the provision of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law refers merely to legal residence and not to physical or actual residence as well. Bearing in mind the purpose of the law, which is to accord a fair opportunity for protest against naturalization by those who know the applicant, it is not difficult to see that actual or physical residence merits the same importance, if not indeed more, as legal residence. For, in whatever place the applicant establishes his actual residence, there he evinces his conduct and exhibits his acts. The people around him or those with whom he mingles, acquire an intimate knowledge of his genuine personality and become better judges of his fitness for citizenship. On the other hand, legal residence could be the place where the applicant seldom stays. As a gauge of his real self, information yielded by the legal residence could be illusory, for the people in such place may gain but a superficial knowledge of the subject’s conduct and activities, which could be just an inkling of a few of the many facets on his life. Considerations such as these have impelled this Court to underscore the importance of alleging the actual or physical residence . . ." (Chua Eng Go v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21054, July 18, 1967).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition is dismissed, with costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19579, Feb. 28, 1966, Lim Yuen v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21218, Dec. 24, 1965 Wang I. Fu v. Republic, No. L-15819, Sept. 29, 1962.

2. Tan Sen v. Republic, G.R. No. L-23181, Oct. 24, 1967; Chua Tek @ Senando Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-22372, March 31, 1967; Dy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20152, February 28, 1966.




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






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA