LIM KET KAI, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Petitioner-appellant Lim Ket Kai filed a petition for
naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental on
January 17, 1947. He is a Chinese citizen born on October 25, 1902, in
Amoy, China; having first come to the Philippines on November 28, 1914.
He is now residing in Misamis Oriental and has lived in the Philippines
for about 30 years, except for three sojourns of one year each in China
in 1916, 1924, and 1931. He is married to a Chinese woman named Rosario
Uy and has nine children. He is a merchant engaged in milling rice and
corn and is the owner of real estate valued at P80,000.

To the petition for naturalization, the assistant provincial fiscal
of Misamis Oriental filed opposition among other grounds because the
petitioner did not possess all the necessary qualifications required by
law and that his “primary objectives in applying for Philippine
citizenship are, to escape deportation, to secure lands and other
rights and privileges granted only to Filipino citizens, for purely
petitioner’s personal aggrandizement, the expansion of his business
enterprise.” A similar opposition based on the same grounds already
stated was filed by one Antonio Tann. Yacapin. Later the same assistant
provincial fiscal in representation of the Republic of the Philippines,
filed a motion for dismissal of the petition on the ground that
petitioner did not. allege in his petition compliance with the fifth
requirement provided for in section 2 of the Revised Naturalization
Law, to wit:

“He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and anyone of the principal Philippine language.”

After due hearing, the trial court dismissed the case with costs,
for several reasons, among them that petitioner failed to prove that he
was able to speak and write English or Spanish. Lim Ket Kai is now
appealing from that decision.

After a careful review of the evidence in this case, we agree with
the lower court that the appellant has failed to establish one of the
qualifications or conditions required by Commonwealth Act No. 473
(Section 2, subsection 5), namely, that an applicant for naturalization
should be able to speak and write English or Spanish. To start with,
petitioner in enumerating his qualifications in his petition, failed,
perhaps intentionally, to state or claim that he speaks and writes
English or Spanish. We say “perhaps intentionally” because he knew that
he did not possess said qualification. During the hearing, he did not
present any evidence to prove his ability to speak and write English or
Spanish. It is true that on the witness-stand when asked if he was able
to speak or write any language, he gave the answer: “I can read and
write Chinese and the Cebu Visayan dialect and I understand the English
language although I cannot read or write it very well.”

When the provincial fiscal, representing the Government began his
cross-examination of the petitioner, he (Fiscal) requested the court
that the applicant be required to answer his questions in English,
and the trial Judge answered: “Why do you require.that? He has declared
that he understands a little English, but he cannot write it. He can
only speak Visayan.” In the course of his cross-examination the Fiscal
asked the petitioner this question: “You have stated a while ago that
you cannot write English. Can you speak and write Spanish? Answer—No,
sir. Only the Visayan dialect.”

The evidence further shows that because of the opposition filed by
the Fiscal and some residents of the town of Cagayan de Misamis to the
petition for naturalization, the National Bureau of Investigation sent
an agent to said province to-conduct an investigation. The result of
said investigation and the recommendation of the investigator to his
Bureau may be gleaned from one of the agent’s answers given on the
witness-stand on this question of the Fiscal: “Did you conduct an
investigation, as requested by the Solicitor General? Answer—Yes, sir *
* *. Please relate to this Court as to your findings. In my interview
with applicant, I found that the applicant, first, was not able to read
and write English or Spanish, as required by the Naturalization Law.
That was one of the grounds for my recommending the disapproval of the
applicant’s petition.”

From the evidence on record we find as did the trial court that the
petitioner-appellant not only failed to prove that he could speak and
write English or Spanish as required by the law on naturalization but
that it was even shown that he could not speak and write anyone of
these two languages. Naturally, the trial court was justified in
denying his petition for naturalization. Considering the conclusion
that we have reached, we deem it unnecessary to discuss and decide the
other points raised in the appeal.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from insofar as it
denies or dismisses the petition for naturalization of
petitioner-appellant, is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ., concur.