IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF WANG I FU TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. WANG I FU, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPEL…

This is an appeal taken by a Chinese named Wang I Fu, from the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, in Civil Case No. 32003, denying his
petition for naturalization. 

It appears that petitioner was born on February 15, 1918 in Chingkang, China.
On May 14, 1934, he came to the Philippines where he has continuously resided
since then. He is married to Maria Sun, also a Chinese, and out of said marriage
were born five children, namely: Maria Teresita, George, Eduardo, Gladys and
Maria Nancy. Petitioner is engaged in the glassware business from which he
derives an average annual income of P8,000.00. He speaks and writes English and
Tagalog. He has enrolled his minor children of school age in private schools in
Manila—his two sons at the Huang Chi School and his three daughters at the
Immaculate Conception Anglo-Chinese Academy.

The lower court has found that petitioner is not opposed to organized
government and that there is no evidence that he is associated with any group of
persons who uphold the doctrines opposed to organized government; neither is he
in favor of using violence for the success of one’s ideals; he is not a
polygamist nor a believer in the practice thereof; he has not been convicted of
any crime involving moral turpitude; neither is he suffering from any mental
alienation or incurable contagious disease.

Despite petitioner’s possession of the above qualifications, the court,
however, denied his petition on the following grounds: (1) Petitioner has been
using aliases and two of his children have different surnames from those
of the other three; (2) he was educated in the Anglo-Chinese School where he had
no Filipino classmates and he has always been residing in neighborhoods
inhabited by Chinese; (3) He has no love for his mother in China as shown by the
fact that he never sent her money and that he did not know whether or not she is
still alive; (4) He is a member of the Philippine-Chinese Glassware Merchants
Association which is composed entirely of Chinese. Said association has passed a
resolution against the Filipino First Policy, to which resolution he did not
object; (5) Among the seven employees of petitioner only two are Filipinos; and
(6) It has not been sufficiently shown that his witnesses have such a close
contact with petitioner as to be able to testify to become a citizen.

The petitioner has appealed.

A review of the Record convinces Us that petitioner does not deserve to be
admitted to Philippine citizenship.

The evidence really, shows that petitioner has been using some
aliases. In his landing certificate, immigrant certificate of residence
and alien certificate of registration, petitioner’s name appear as Wang I Fu.
However, in his marriage contract, he gave his name as George Wang I Fu, while
in the birth certificates of his children he used the alias George Ong.
Aside from George Wang and George Ong, petitioner also uses the alias Ong
Hay Kuan. The use of said aliases is not explained and there is no
showing that it has been authorized as required by the Alias Law (Commonwealth
Act No. 142). Being violative of the law, we think this act of petitioner is not
beyond reproach and is, therefore, a ground for denying his application for
naturalization. (See Koa Gui vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-17317, July 31, 1962; Lim
Bun vs. Republic 111 Phil., 677; and Ng Liam Keng vs. Republic, 111 Phil.,
854.)

It also appears from petitioner’s evidence that in the birth certificates and
certificates of registration of his daughters Maria Teresita and Maria Nancy,
their surname is Ong, but in petitioner’s testimony he mentions Wang as the
surname of these two children. As correctly observed by the trial court, this
using of different names is not in accordance with customs and traditions of the
Filipino people.

As to petitioner’s not having serious concern over his mother’s whereabouts
or existence, the lower court made the following observation:

“Petitioner also testified that he went to Hongkong in 1954, but he did not
see his mother because she was residing in Chingkang, China, which was under the
communist regime then and up to the present; but admitted that there was a
regular postal system between the Philippines and Red China and he was writing
to his mother since 1947 and 1948. He further claimed that although he went to
Hongkong in 1954 he did not send his mother any money in spite of his claim that
he owns a business in the Philippines worth P150,000.00. When pressed for an
explanation for his seemingly strange attitude toward his mother, petitioner
explained that he did not send money to his mother because he believes that his
brother will take care of his mother.

“During the latter part of his testimony, petitioner sought to give an
additional explanation for his failure to send money to his mother by stating
that he did not know whether she is still alive or not. This statement was
contradicted by his earlier testimony when he testified that one week before he
went to Hongkong he wrote a letter to his mother notifying her that he was going
to Hongkong. The foregoing, in the mind of the Court, shows that petitioner has
no love for his mother.”

Apparently, petitioner had not seen his mother since 1934 when he came to
live in this country, yet he made no efforts to inquire about her. If he should
have the concern that a Filipino has for his mother, he should have, at least,
corresponded with his brothers in China about their mother’s well-being. Again,
petitioner’s attitude in this regard does not speak well of his claim to have
embraced the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipino people.

Petitioner’s membership in the Philippine Chinese Glassware Merchants
Association, and his acquiescence to the resolution against the Filipino First
Policy, indicate that he prefers to associate with his co-Chinese and his
sympathy is with them and not with the Filipinos.

Even in the selection of his employees, petitioner has shown himself to be
partial in favor of Chinese citizens, because, as pointed out above, one of the
seven employees in his business, only the driver and cargador are Filipinos, and
the responsible positions are held by Chinese.

Another observation that bespeaks of petitioner’s indifference to the
Filipinos is that all of his children are studying in Chinese schools, namely,
the Immaculate Conception Anglo-Chinese Academy and the Huang Chi School. The
names of these schools convey the impression that they are not for Filipinos and
where there is no mingling among Chinese with Filipino children. We have already
observed in previous cases (Garchitorena vs. Republic, 111 Phil., 607; Hao Su
Siong alias Ramon Cuenco vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-13045, July 30,
1962) that this circumstance affects the sincerity of petitioner’s intention to
become a Filipino citizen. As properly stated in a previous case:

“* * *. One of the essential requisites for naturalization is the actual
desire and overt acts on the part of the applicant for naturalization to mingle
and associate with Filipinos. The purpose of this policy is to permit gradual
assimilation of naturalized citizens. It would be violative of this policy to
admit aliens who evince a desire to preserve their identity as aliens. (Ong
Ching Guan vs. Republic 111 Phil., 433.)

Lastly, We feel that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to show that
petitioner is morally irreproachable. The law requires proper and irreproachable
conduct during the applicant’s entire period of residence in the
Philippines. Since the only witnesses presented by petitioner—Alfredo Peñalosa
and Jose Bernabe—came to know the petitioner only in 1943 and 1945,
respectively, they are not in a position to testify as to applicant’s conduct
from the time he arrived in the Philippines in May 1934. It should take more
than uncorroborated assertions of petitioner himself to establish this vital
fact. (Chua Pun vs. Republic, 113 Phil., 628.)

In view of the foregoing, the decision dismissing Wang I Fu’s petition for
naturalization is hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioner-appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.