Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19835. May 29, 1970.]

IN RE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, WILFREDO LIM alias WILFREDO UY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Constancio E. Jaugan for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, First Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; NEW TRIAL; NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, NOT FORGOTTEN EVIDENCE IS GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL. — The trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial and setting the case for the reception of the alleged newly discovered evidence where it is clear that the alleged newly discovered evidence presented by petitioner was not newly discovered but forgotten evidence; something that petitioner already knew or should have known at the time he filed his petition for naturalization or at the time said petition was heard on the merits.

2. POLITICAL LAW; NATURALIZATION; USE OF ALIAS WITHOUT COURT AUTHORITY GROUND FOR DENIAL OF PETITION. — The order of the trial court granting the petitioner’s petition for Philippine citizenship must be reversed where petitioner admits having used without proper authority the alias Wilfredo Uy in addition to his name Wilfredo Lim appearing in his birth certificate. His character witnesses also knew him by either one of both names. His school record also shows that he had been using the name Uy, Wilfredo.

3. ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT OF ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT AND LUCRATIVE INCOME, NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE AT BAR. — As there is no sufficient evidence in the record to show that the trading firm, of which the petitioner alleges he is a purchasing agent, needed a purchasing agent in Cebu City; considering further that petitioner’s alleged employment was not reported to the Social Security System for coverage, and that the business in which the firm of his father was engaged was nationalized business, it is not unreasonable to presume that his alleged employment was fictitious, invented exclusively to make it appear that petitioner had a lucrative income for the purposes of his application for Philippine citizenship.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


On July 23, 1960 petitioner Wilfredo Lim @ Wilfredo Uy filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros, to which was attached the joint affidavit of his character witnesses. After due publication, the petition was heard on the merits.

On June 20, 1961 the trial court issued an order granting the petition for naturalization and ordering that the proper naturalization certificate be issued to petitioner, the order providing further that it shall not become executory until after the lapse of two years from the date of its promulgation and after compliance with the requisites prescribed by Republic Act No. 530.

On August 16, 1961 the Provincial Fiscal of Oriental Negros moved for a reconsideration of the above mentioned order upon two grounds, namely, that petitioner had not satisfactorily proved his alleged chinese (nationalist) citizenship and that his evidence was insufficient to prove that he was gainfully employed as required by the Revised Naturalization Law. Finding the motion for reconsideration to be well founded, the trial court set aside its order of June 20, 1961.

On October 5 of the same year petitioner moved for a new trial on the ground of the alleged newly discovered evidence enumerated in his pleading. Over the opposition of the Provincial Fiscal the trial court granted the motion for new trial and set the case for the reception of the alleged newly discovered evidence on September 11, 1961, and after receiving the same, on February 1962 said court issued a new order granting the petition for naturalization, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner is GRANTED and it is ordered that the proper Naturalization Certificate be issued to petitioner WILFREDO LIM, which certificate shall be registered as required by Section 10 of Act No. 3753. However this Order shall not become executory until after the lapse of two (2) years from the date of promulgation and after complying with the requisites prescribed by Republic Act No. 530." (pp. 70-71, rec. on appeal.)

The State appealed in due time from the last order and now prays for a reversal thereof on the ground that the trial court committed the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A NEW TRIAL TO RECEIVE FORGOTTEN, NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

II


PETITIONER USES AN ALIAS WITHOUT COURT AUTHORITY AND IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAS ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT AND LUCRATIVE INCOME.

IV


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITION WAS NOT PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.

V


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE PETITIONER’S CONDUCT.

VI


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION."cralaw virtua1aw library

Anent the first assignment of error, it is clear that the alleged newly discovered evidence presented by petitioner was not newly discovered but forgotten evidence; something that petitioner already knew or should have known at the time he filed his petition for naturalization or at the time said petition was heard on the merits.

As far as the second alleged error is concerned, petitioner admits having used the alias WILFREDO UY in addition to his name WILFREDO LIM appearing in his birth certificate. His character witnesses also knew him by either one or both names. His school record also shows that he had been using the name UY WILFREDO.

That petitioner used the alias mentioned above without proper authority and had, in fact, never applied for such authority was openly admitted by him. (T.S.N. Espiritu, p. 90.)

In relation to the issue raised in the third assignment of error, petitioner tried to prove that he had a lucrative income as a purchasing agent in Cebu City for the Lim Quico Trading. Said firm was owned by his father — who was not a Filipino citizen — was managed by his brother and was engaged in the relatively small town of Jamalalud, Oriental Negros, in the business of buying and selling corn mill.

As there is no sufficient evidence in the record to show that the aforesaid trading firm needed a purchasing agent in Cebu City; considering further that petitioner’s alleged employment was not reported to the Social Security System for coverage, and that the business in which the firm of his father was engaged was a nationalized business, it is not unreasonable to presume that his alleged employment was fictitious, invented exclusively to make it appear that petitioner had a lucrative income for the purposes of his application for Philippine citizenship.

In view of the conclusions we have arrived at in connection with the first three assignments of error, We do not deem it necessary to consider and resolve the issues covered by the others.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and set aside with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., is on official leave.

Teehankee, J., concurs in the result.




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






May-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO