G.R. No. L-9225. August 21, 1957

The Government is appealing from the decision of the Court of First Instance of  Cebu,  granting the petition for naturalization filed by  Ramon  Ting alias Ting  Tian Yu.

The appellant did not file any opposition to the petition for naturalization, but an  assistant provincial  fiscal appeared during the hearing and cross examined the “witnesses for the  petitioner.  According to the  evidence and the findings  of the lower court, the petitioner, born in China of Chinese parents in the year 1914, came to the Philippines about the middle  of March  1920,  and had continuously resided here up to the date  of the hearing, except when in 1925, he and  his father went to China for  a six months visit; that he finished  the  high school  course offered  by the Southern  Colleges, now known as the  University of Southern Philippines,  Cebu City, graduating  therefrom in 1937; that  in 1938, he  married Conchita Tan  alias Tan Ching Tee,  daughter  of  a  Chinese father  married  to  a Filipina; that his two children,  Erlinda Ting and Teodoro Ting, both studied in  the San Jose College  of Cebu; and that petitioner is a sales agent and bookkeeper of the Hua Kiong Trading of Cebu and at the same time kept the books for other stores, receiving a total income of P3,000.00 a  year. The  trial court found  that during, his long stay  in the Philippines, petitioner has  observed  good  conduct and has maintained excellent relations with the Government authorities as well  as with  the  Filipinos; that he has never been accused of any  crime or offense and has paid his taxes; and that he does not possess any of the disqualifications  for  naturalization but  on the other  hand has the  qualifications required by  law.

The Government, however, claims that  the petitioner failed  to comply  with  the  naturalization  law requiring the filing of a declaration of intention to become a citizen, because  although  he may have come  to the  Philippines in 1920,  nevertheless,  he absented himself by  going back to China in 1925, and although he returned to the  Philippines  after  six  months,  the continuous  residence  of thirty  years required  by law for  exemption from the duty of  riling the aforementioned declaration should  be computed from that year, 1925, in which case,  when  he filed his  petition for naturalization on December  15,  1950, his continuous  residence was only about twenty-five  years. We do not believe that a  short absence from the  Philippines,  such as the visit made by the petitioner to  China for a  period of six  months in 1925, should  be held to interrupt his residence begun in 1920.  In the  case  of Leon  Miranda  Tio Liok vs.  Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-4545, October 29, 1952, we  held that absence of short duration from the  Philippines did not interrupt or affect the continuous residence of thirty years required by  law for exemption from  the duty to file a  declaration of intention.  We said:

* * * “But we find that petitioner is  exempt  from filing such declaration of intention it appearing from the evidence that he  has continuously resided  in the Philippines  for over thirty years with the exception of  two, instances when he went to  China for short visits (Exhibit A, pp. 34-35),” * * *

The appellant also expresses the opinion that the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify for the petitioner when said  witness  was not one  of  those  mentioned as a character  witness  in  the petition, and  there was no  reason  given  why the character  witness so mentioned in the petition, Uldarieo Alviola, was not presented in court to testify, but that the other witness was allowed to  testify  in his  place.  We are  afraid that  counsel of the  Government  is  laboring  under a misapprehension or  mistake.  The other witness,  Conrado Costanilla, was presented  only as a corroborative  witness.   As a matter of fact,  Uldarico Alviola actually testified and was even cross-examined by the  assistant fiscal, but  inasmuch as he testified in Spanish, another stenographer was utilized to take  down  his testimony,  resulting  in  two separate transcripts of the stenographic notes taken, one by stenographer Gregorio Maureal, who took down the  testimonies of all the witnesses, except Uldarico  Alviola  whose testimony was taken down by stenographer Candido  Jumapao.  Appellant’s counsel presumably overlooked the second transcript.

In view of the foregoing,  the decision appealed from is hereby  affirmed.  No costs.

Paras,  Bengzon, Padilla,  Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B.  L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.