IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. GO KEM ALIAS WILLIAM GO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Petitioner Go Kem Lim, alias William Co, single, born in the Philippines
of Chinese parents on May 7, 1939, “filed a declaration of intention to apply
for Filipino citizenship on March 24, 1960. Subsequently, or on May 3, 1961, he
filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.

Notices of the petition were duly
published and posted. At the hearing:, on January 15,
1962 and March 3, 1962, petitioner and his two character witnesses testified as
follows :

Ricardo Villanueva, 68, married,
resident of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, said that he is a Filipino citizen and
incumbent mayor of Baliangao; that he has personally
known petitioner since the latter’s birth in 1939 in Baliangao; that petitioner has resided in Baliangao continuously from birth to the present; that he
personally knows that petitioner is a person of good repute, morally
irreproachable, attached to the principles of the Philippine Constitution and
disposed to the good order and happiness of the Philippines; that in his opinion
petitioner has all the qualifications, and is not disqualified, to become a
Filipino citizen; that he agrees to petitioner’s naturalization because he is a
“very good man and a law abiding citizen and is very cooperative for the
improvements of the municipality”.

Ramon Villanueva, 62, married,
resident of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental stated that he is a Filipino citizen and
municipal secretary of Baliangao; that since
petitioner’s birth, in Baliangao, he knew him because
petitioner was reared therein and because he was well-acquainted with
petitioner’s mother and is, in fact, the godfather of petitioner’s sister; that
in his opinion petitioner is of good repute, morally irreproachable, attached to
the principles underlying the Constitution and well disposed to the good order
and happiness of the Philippines, and has mil the qualifications and no disqualification for naturalization; and that petitioner is
“very cooperative to both social and civic undertakings of the government” and
was in f»ct recently appointed treasurer of the Jose Rizal Centenary Celebration of their
municipality.

Petitioner testified, inter
alia, that he has resided in Baliangao since birth except during the time he was studying
at Dumaguete and Cebu; that
he is a storekeeper of Go Kung Commercial, owned by his uncle, with a salary of
P300.00 per month, as shown in his income tax return for 1960 (Exh. B.); that he is a shareholder in the amount of
P2,700.00 in the Lim Feng business firm; that he
speaks and writes English and Cebu-Visayan; that he
believes in the principle underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire
residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted authorities
as well as with the community he lives in; that he has mingled freely with
Filipinos in their social functions and has evinced a sincere desire to adopt or
embrace the customs and ideals of the Filipinos; that some instances of his
social minglng with Filipinos are “during fiesta and
in one of the celebrations of the Philippines, I was appointed as Treasurer of
the Jose Rizal Centenary
Celebration”.

Furthermore, on
cross-examination, petitioner stated that he studied at the Cebu Chinese High School around four years, “grades 3 to 5
then for the 4th year”; that he is not supporting his mother, although a
deduction of P1 ,000.00 in regard to his mother was
claimed in his income tax return for 1960. Reiterating that he believes in the
principle that underlie the Philippine Constitution, he
could not, however, mention one of them. Asked to mention some of the Filipino
customs, he replied: “We eat three times a day”. Asked what else, he added:
“During fiesta celebrate”.

In his re-direct testimony
petitioner said that while he is no longer supporting his mother, he did so in
1960, the year the tax deduction was claimed for; and that, at any rate, he paid
P46.00 as income tax per official receipt (Exh. B-l),
that is, more than the tax due even if the deduction were disallowed.

The Republic presented no
evidence but submitted, on March 12, 1962, a memorandum opposing petitioner’s
naturalization. Petitioner in turn filed his memorandum on March 17,
1962.

On March 28, 1962, the Court of
First Instance rendered its decision granting Filipino citizenship to
petitioner. The Republic thereupon appealed.

First, appellant contends that
petitioner has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in his relation with the constituted
government, as required by Sec. 2, par. 3, of the Naturalization Law. In support
thereof it is argued that petitioner made a false income tax return by claiming
a deduction of P1,000.00 for his mother although he is
not supporting her. The record shows that during the trial in 1962, petitioner
stated he is not supporting his mother; nonetheless, he later explained
that in 1960 he was supporting her and this was not rebutted.
Furthermore, petitioner admittedly paid sufficient income tax for 1960 even
disallowing the aforesaid deduction.

Appellant also points out that
petitioner’s Alien Certificate of Registration was not presented. Petitioner,
however, adduced his Native Born Certificate of Registration (Exh. F). Furthermore, the presentation of the Alien
Certificate of Registration is required only upon demand by the authorities,
which was not made herein (Sec. 7, RA 562 as amended by Sec. 3, RA 751). Roth of
the instances cited, therefore, are not prejudicial to
petitioner’s application.

Secondly, appellant maintains
that petitioner has not proven his belief in the principles underlying the
Constitution. We find merit in this contention. For while petitioner repeatedly
claimed to hold such beliefs, he could not even mention a single one of the
principles he allegedly believed in. It is now argued on his behalf that he has
shown such beliefs in action rather than in words. Specifically, by helping his
mother in spending for his brother’s education, he is paid to have believed in
the principle that “the natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of the
youth for civic efficiency should receive the aid and support of the Government”
(Sec. 4, Art. II); and his participation in civic and community projects is said
to have shown belief in the principle that “the Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of
international Jaw as part of the law of the Nation” (Sec. 3, Art II). We see no
necessary relation between petitioner’s actuations and the principles
abovementioned. Such actions could just as readily be taken for reasons foreign
to or independent from the Philippine Constitution and the principle underlying
it. For action to indicate belief in the principles underlying the Constitution,
the same must be so conclusively attributable to said
principles as to convince the Court that they spring from a belief in
them.

Finally, on appeal in
naturalization cases the entire record is open to scrutiny whether objection is
made or not (Kwan Kwock How vs. Republic,
L-18521, Jan. 30, 1964; Tio Tek Chai vs. Republic,
L-19112, Oct. 30, 1964). We may therefore add that petitioner’s evidence is
fatally defective on two other counts.

Petitioner, while resident of
Baliangao since birth, has not continuously resided
therein; a good portion of his time was admittedly spent in Cebu where he studied at the Cebu
Chinese High School. Since his two character witnesses, Ricardo Villanueva and
Ramon Villanueva, only claim to be both residents of Baliangao, they cannot, as such, qualify to attest to his
good conduct and irreproachable character during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines (De Lara vs. Republic, L-18203, May 29,
1964).

Petitioner’s evidence on his
social mingling with Filipinos consists in general statements that he cooperates
in social a civic undertakings, mixes with Filipinos “during fiesta”, and the
specific instance of his having been appointed treasurer of the Jose Rizal Centenary Celebration of Baliangao on December 30, 1961.

Social mingling, as this Court
has said in Chua vs. Republic, L-19776, Sept. 29. 1964, means that “an applicant
must deal with and receive Filipinos in his home, and visit Filipino homes in a
spirit of friendliness and equality, without any discrimination.” It was therein
pointed out that this must be shown not by general statements but by “concrete
instances (with dates, places and names)” to satisfy the Court that
disqualification under Sec. 4(f) of the Naturalization Law does not exist Said
social mingling, furthermore, must have taken place “during the entire period of
the applicant’s residence in the Philippines in order to preclude any temporary
sporadic social intercourse set up for naturalization
purposes”.

Far from showing the foregoing,
petitioner stated that he studied and finished high school in the Cebu Chinese School where Filipinos are not allowed to
enroll (Tsn., Jan. 15, 1962, p. 20). Neither can it be
said that petitioner has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions and ideals of our people, inasmuch as when asked to mention
a Filipino custom his first reply was: “We eat three times a
day”.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
hereby reversed and the petition denied, with costs against petitioner-appellee.

It is
so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J.,
Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes,
Makalintal and Zaldivar JJ., concur.