IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURAL­IZATION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE UY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL­IPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

The Solicitor General appealed from the decision dated December
8, 1965 of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental granting the petition for naturalization filed by petitioner-appellee Jose Uy, on the grounds
that petitioner did not have a lucrative income and that his character wit­nesses
failed to prove that petitioner possesses all the qual­ifications and none of
the disqualifications for Philippine citizenship.

On November 25, 1964,
petitioner-appellee filed his petition for
naturalization, which does not state his six-year residence from 1951-56 in Dumaguete City
where he finished his high school and obtained his college degree from Silliman, University
(Exhs. D, S & S-1).  His petition also does not include his other
names Jose T. Uy, Jose Tan Uy
and Jose Uy, Sr. which appear in his marriage
contract, the birth certificates of his two sons, the baptismal certificate of
his eldest son, Jose Uy, Jr., his high school
diploma, and his college diploma (Exhs. L, N, N-1, P,
S, & S-1).

The notice of hearing (Exh. G) does not
re-state verbatim the petition and omitted the allegations concerning his
residence in Iloilo City where he was allegedly born on June 27, 1929 and
admittedly resided until 1934 (p. 16, t.s.n.) as he
was baptized only on January 6, 1934 in Pulupandan, Negros Occidental (Exh. K-1, p.
30, rec, of exhs.), his
being of good moral character and his being exempted from filing a declaration
of intention (pars. 2, 10, and 20 of peti­tion Exh. A).  It should be stressed that said deficient
notice of hearing was published in the Official Gazette issues of December 28,
1964, January 4, and January 11, 1965 (Exh. H) and in
the News Clipper issues of November 8, December 5, and December 12, 1964 (Exh.
I) as well as posted on the bulle­tin board of the court (Exh.
G-1).

He has not submitted clearances from the NBI, NICA and the City
Attorney, provincial fiscal, provincial commander, city chief of police, and
clerks of court of Dumaguete City and Negros Oriental.

It is patent therefore that the petition suffers from various
flaws in violation of the requirements of the law which should be complied with
strictly.

Thus, he did not mention his six-year residence in Dumaguete City
from 1951 to 1956 while studying in Silliman University
(Exhs. D, S, & S-1) when he was already of age
and the other names he employed, namely Jose T. Uy,
Jose Tan Uy, and Jose Uy,
Sr. (Exhs. L, N, N-1, P, S, & S-1).  He
did not even specifically allege that he resided at Isnar St., Iloilo City where he studied for several years from 1946.  The notice of hearing did not re-state
verbatim the petition, because it omitted the allegations therein concerning
his residence in Iloilo
City which the notice of hearing mentions as his
birth­place only, about his good moral character, and his alleged exemption
from filing a declaration of intention (pars. 2, 10, & 20 of the petition, Exhs. G & I).

Time and time again, this Tribunal ruled that such omissions
nullify the petition.^[1]

Petitioner-appellee likewise failed to
establish a lucrative trade or occupation by clear and convincing evi­dence.  While he obtained in 1956 his Bachelor of
Business Administration from SiIliman University, and
he testified that he has been employed as a salesman of Uy
Bico and Company which gives him free house, light
and water worth approximately P130.00 (pp. 32, 33, 46, t.s.n.)
aside from his salary; his 1962 income tax return (Exh.
J) does not state that his employer is Uy Bico & Co. but Huang Hue Tek
who paid him P2,100.00 a year, and Pedro Uy who paid
him P3,000.00 a year.  His pretension on
this score is thus rendered doubtful and made more incredible by the fact that
Pedro Uy is his
elder brother (pp. 19, 37, t.s.n.) who is the manager
of Uy Bico & Co. (p.
50, t.s.n.) and that he never mentioned in the course
of his testimony Huang Hue Tek as his employer.  Moreover, his testimony is not corroborated
by any certification from the Social Security System that he is among the
employees of Uy Bico &
Co.^[2]
or by the corresponding income tax returns of Uy Bico & Co. and of Huang Hue Tek.  His claim that he owns nine (9) shares in Uy Bico & Co. worth P1,000.00 does not merit
belief in the absence of the best evidence, which are the certi­ficates of the
stock issued in his name or certified true photostats
thereof or even secondary evidence consisting of a certification to that effect
by the corporate secretary of the firm accompanied by a certified copy of the
articles of incorporation showing its capitalization as well as assets to
confirm his statement that it has not as yet declared any dividend.  Even his allegation that the house which he
and his family occupy would
command a rental of P100.00 a month is
as self-serving as his claim that his light and water bills would amount to
over P30.00 a month, in the absence of a description or a picture of the said house and receipts of
payment for light and water bills.  In a
small town like Pulu­pandan, a family would not pay
over P30.00 for light and water.

Further aggravating his lack of credibility is his 1963 income
tax return (Exh. J-1), which shows an income of
P6,000.00 without indicating in the corresponding spaces therefor
the nature and source of the same.  This
is all the more compounded because it
is confounded, by his 1964 income tax return (Exh,
J-2) showing his alleged income of P5,160.00 broken down into P600.00 as salary
coming from Uy Bico &
Co., P2,400,00 as service fee (no longer salary) from Pedro Uy,
lower than his 1962 income of P3,000.00, and P2,160.00 representing service fee
(no longer salary as in 1962) from Huang Hue Tek.

Sec. 7 of C.A. No. 473 requires that the two char­acter witnesses
must state in their affidavits supporting the petition that they are Filipino
citizens.  Antonio Ko,
the second character witness of petitioner-appellee,
has not established satisfactorily that he is a citizen of the Philippines.  He has not submitted indubitable documentary
evi­dence to establish his statement that his father was a natural-born
Filipino citizen, after admitting that his mother is a Chinese citizen.  Moreover, he is not a competent witness
insofar as the good moral character of the petitioner is concerned; because, he
is a resident of Victorias
about 60 kilometers from Pulupandan and since 1956 he
sees the petitioner-appellee only about twice a week
when he allegedly inspects his transportation line in Pulupandan.  The witness is the insurer of the character
of the applicant and much depends on what he knows of the applicant during his
entire period of residence in the country.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated December 8, 1965 is hereby reversed,
and the petition for naturalization of petitioner-appellee
is hereby dismissed.  With costs against
petitioner-appellee.

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

Castro and Teehankee, JJ., in the result.

^[1]
Ye vs. Republic, L-22302, Jan. 30,
1971; Tek vs. Republic, L-23383,
Jan. 28, 1971; Dy vs. Republic, L-21958, Sept. 28, 1970; Yu Tiu vs. Republic, L-19844, June 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 587, 589-590.

^[2]
Lim vs. Republic, L-19835, May
29, 1970.

^[3]
Dy vs. Republic, L-21958, Sept, 28, 1970;
Te Poot vs. Republic, 27 SCRA 644, 650, March
28, 1969; Yap vs. Republic, 17 SCRA, 8, 10; Yan
vs. Republic, L-19832, Aug, 23, 1966, 17 SCRA 956, 960-61.