IN RE: PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
MACALINO, J:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED and petitioner Jian Chen X[i]e a.k.a[.] Jose Sia is hereby admitted as citizen of the Republic of the Philippines. Subject to the conditions indicated below:
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 530, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Act, this judgment shall become final and executory after two years from promulgation and this Court, after hearing with notice, shall have been satisfied that during the intervening period, petitioner herein: (1) has not left the Philippines, (2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, (4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. Thereafter, this judgment granting Philippine citizenship to petitioner shall be revived and corresponding oath of allegiance shall be taken by said petitioner whereupon and not before will he be entitled to all privileges of a Filipino citizen and the Certificate of Naturalization be forthwith issued in his favor by the Clerk of Court.
SO ORDERED.”[2]
The Facts
On May 19, 2009, Jian Chen Xie, a.k.a. Jose Sia (petitioner-appellee) filed a petition for naturalization before the RTC, docketed as Nat. Case No. Q-09-64853.
Petitioner-appellee made the following allegations in his petition: that he was born on March 16, 1963 in Fukien, China; that his present address is at Unit 906 King Center Building, 57 Sgt. E Rivera St., Manresa, Quezon City where he has resided since 2001; that he previously resided at the following addresses: (a) 563 Quintin Paredes St., Manila from 1983 to 1990; and, (b) No. 201, 6th Ave., cor. 8th St., Caloocan City from 1991 to 2000; that he has continuously resided in the Philippines since 1983, or for more than ten (10) years, at the time of filing of the petition.
Petitioner-appellee averred that he is married to Sha Ru Lu, a Chinese citizen, with whom he has two (2) children, namely: Shiela and Julie Anne, who were born on July 2, 1998 and July 27, 2001, respectively; that Shiela and Julie Anne, both minors, are enrolled at PACE Academy in Quezon City, an educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education, where Philippine History, Government and Civics are taught and prescribed as part of the curriculum and, that enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality.
Petitioner-appellee further alleged that he is engaged in a business under the name “Antar Trading Co.,” a corporation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which reports an average income of PhP3,400,000.00; that he speaks and writes English, Chinese and Tagalog; he finished his basic schooling in China before migrating to the Philippines; he has filed with the OSG, at least one year prior to the filing of the petition, a declaration under oath that it is his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines; that he is a person of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying in the Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations with the government and the community where he has been living; he has mingled socially with Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos; he is not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; he does not defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence; he is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy; he has never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; he is not suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases and the nation of which he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines; that it is his intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to China; and that he undertakes to continuously reside in the Philippines from the time of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission as citizen of the Philippines.
In support of his petition, petitioner-appellee attached the following documents: I-Card in lieu of Birth Certificate;[3] Marriage Certificate;[4] Certificate of Live Birth of his children;[5] Certification dated January 26, 2009 from PACE Academy;[6] Alien Certificate of Registration;[7] Immigration Certificate of Residence;[8] Annual Income Tax Return for the years 2006-2008;[9] SEC Registration of Business;[10] Medical Certificate;[11] NBI Clearance;[12] Quezon City Police Clearance;[13] Quezon City Office of the City Prosecutor’s Clearance;[14] Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Clearance;[15] Quezon City Regional Trial Court Clearance;[16] and Affidavit of Character Witnesses.[17]
In an Order dated May 25, 2009,[18] the RTC set the hearing for the petition on February 19, 2010 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. In compliance with jurisdictional requirements, petitioner-appellee caused the publication of the petition and its annexes, including the RTC Order dated May 25, 2009, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette on July 13, 20, and 27[19] and in the Daily Tribune Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation on July 15, 22 and 29, 2009.[20] A copy of the Order was posted in the Bulletin Boards of the Quezon City Hall and near the RTC.[21]
In the course of the trial, petitioner-appellee presented himself and two of his employees, Daisy J. Antonio and Eddie D. Ferolino, as his witnesses. Thereafter, he filed his formal offer of evidence.
After hearing, the RTC granted petitioner-appellee’s petition for naturalization in its assailed Decision dated December 17, 2012.
Issues
Hence, oppositor-appellant Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed this appeal raising the following assignment of errors:
“I.
The court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction for naturalization vis-a-vis the requirements under Section 9 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, as amended.II.
The court a quo erred in granting the petition for naturalization as petitioner failed to establish by satisfactory and competent evidence that he has complied with the requirements set forth under C.A. No. 473, as amended.”[22]
This Court’s Ruling
Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.[23] Under current and existing laws, one of the ways by which an alien may become a citizen is through judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, which provide that after hearing the petition for citizenship and receipt of evidence showing that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required by law, the competent court may order the issuance of the proper naturalization certificate and the registration thereof in the proper civil registry.[24]
It is the contention of the OSG that the burden of proof in naturalization cases is upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the law. The OSG argues that petitioner-appellee failed to mention in his petition the date and place of his entry in the Philippines and attach a Certificate of Arrival as required in Section 7[25] of C.A. No. 473, as amended. The OSG finds support in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Republic v. Uy Piek Tuy,[26] as follows:
“Lastly, section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 explicitly provides that ‘the certificate of arrival … must be made part of the petition’ for naturalization. As far back as 1960, we have held that “this provision is mandatory.[27] We reiterated this view in 1964[28] — Stating that ‘it is mandatory for the applicant to attach to his application a copy of his certificate of arrival, for without it or other proof of lawful admission, his residence is presumptively unlawful’ — as well as in 1965.[29] In Tang Kong Kiat v. Republic,[30] we even declared that ‘the failure … to comply with this requirement of the law … is fatal.” (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the above pronouncement that other proof of lawful admission may be attached to the petition. In lieu of a Certificate of Arrival, petitioner-appellee attached to his petition his Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigration Certificate of Residence. He explained that he lawfully entered the Philippines through the port of Manila with status as temporary visitor on July 27, 1983 per his Alien Certificate of Registration No. 050036 issued by the Bureau of Immigration. His first date of arrival was recorded only on January 1, 1993 as returning resident. His status was later adjusted to Lawful Permanent Residence under Executive Order No. 32431 dated April 13, 1988 as reflected in the Immigration Certificate of Residence No. 262963. He stayed in the Philippines for more than ten (10) years prior to filing his petition for naturalization on May 19, 2009.
Petitioner-appellee also complied with the jurisdictional requirement of posting the Order and the Petition for Naturalization and publishing the same in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. The Order dated May 25, 2009 stated all the details required under Section 9, C.A. No. 473, as amended, viz:
“SECTION 9. Notification and Appearance. — Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner’s expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The clerk shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Justice, the Provincial Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary of the Province and the justice of the peace of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides.”
The OSG maintains that petitioner-appellee has really never had any lucrative employment and uses an alias name without judicial authority, in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 (C.A. No. 142).[32]
On the contrary, petitioner-appellee sufficiently established that he has a lucrative trade or lawful occupation. He is a co-owner with a certain Michael Ty Tee, a Filipino, of Antar Trading Co., a company duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission which is engaged in business trading such as hardware, construction and electrical supplies. Petitioner-appellee holds a forty percent (40%) share of Antar Trading Co. which has a gross income of PhP3,400,000.00 from its operation yearly. He is also a partner at Liyimen Restaurant in Banawe, Quezon City which was, however, operating at cost just to employ Filipino chefs, cooks and waiters.
As to the petitioner-appellee’s use of alias without judicial authority, we find the same not contrary to law. The enactment of C.A. No. 142 as amended was made primarily to curb the common practice among the Chinese of adopting scores of different names and aliases which created tremendous confusion in the field of trade.[33] An alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually, usually in business transactions, in addition to the real name by which he was registered at birth or baptized the first time, or to the substitute name authorized by a competent authority; a man’s name is simply the sound or sounds by which he is commonly designated by his fellows and by which they distinguish him, but sometimes a man is known by several different names and these are known as aliases.[34] Here, petitioner-appellee only uses one alias, by which he is known in the business community. What is significant is that such name is not fictitious within the purview of the Anti-Alias Law xxx. Considering that petitioner-appellee was not also shown to have used the name for unscrupulous purposes, or to deceive or confuse the public, the use of the same is justified in fact and in law.[35]
Finally, petitioner-appellee sufficiently proved his good moral character and conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines. He presented as evidence a a) National Bureau of Investigation clearance; (b) Quezon City Police clearance; (c) Quezon City Office of the City Prosecutor’s Clearance; (d) Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Clearance; and, (e) Quezon City Regional Trial Court Clearance showing that he has not committed any violation of Philippine laws, rules or regulations. The testimonies of his witnesses, Eddie D. Ferolino and Daisy J. Antonio convinced this Court that they personally know petitioner-appellee well and are therefore in a position to vouch for his qualifications.
In Lim Ching Tian v. Republic,[36] the Supreme Court explained that the “law requires that a vouching witness should have actually known an applicant for whom he testified for the requisite period prescribed therein to give him the necessary competence to act as such. The reason behind this requirement is that a vouching witness is in a way an insurer of the character of petitioner because on his testimony the court is of necessity compelled to rely in deciding the merits of his petition.”[37] The law, in effect, requires that the character witnesses be not mere ordinary acquaintances of the applicant, but possessed of such intimate knowledge of the latter as to be competent to testify of their personal knowledge; and that they have each one of the requisite qualifications and none of the statutory disqualifications.[38]
The pertinent portions of the character witnesses’ respective testimonies read:
Testimony of Eddie D. Ferolino:
“Q: Since when have you known him? A: Since 1985, sir. xxx A: Because when he put up his own company, I transferred to his company and I’m one of his workers, sir. Q: In 1985 when you first met, how did you know him? A: I am a worker of his uncel (sic) and Jose Sia was the agent and I was a helper, sir. xxx Q: And how about Mr. Sia, do you still see each other? A: Yes, sir. Q: In what capacity? A: Because he is in the office and I am reporting for work there, sir.[39] xxx Q: Mr. Witness, are the[re] any occasions or activities when Mr. Sia invited you to his house? A: Yes, sir. Q: What were these occasions? A: Birthday parties and Christmas parties, sir. xxx Q: And during those times, do you see Mr. Sia mingled with the employees and guests there? A: Yes sir. Q: Mr. Witness, If I may ask you, how do you know Mr. Sia as a person? A: He is helpful, kind and he is also generous if somebody [is] asking [for] his help, sir. Q: Mr. Witness, what are the Filipino traits or customs have you seen that Mr. Sia has been practicing? A: He is helpful and if somebody else asked for donations he helped, sir. Q: Does he observe Philippine holidays or occasions? A: Yes, sir. Q: Like what occa[s]ions? A: Feasts and Christmas parties, sir. Q: Do you know any crimes or crimes committed by Mr. Sia? A: None, sir. Q: How about you Mr. Witness if I may ask, have you committed crime or crimes in the past? A: None, sir. Q: Do you have any records with PNP or NBI or any other law enforcement agencies? A: None, sir. Q: Mr. Witness, how many times have you testified in Court in naturalization proceedings A: Just now, sir. xxx”[40]
Testimony of Daisy J. Antonio:
“Q: Since when have you known him? A: Since 1998, sir. Q: How did you know him? A: Thru his friend, my former employer, sir. xxx Q: How were you introduced tot he petitioner in this case? A: By acquaintance group, sir. Q: At present do you still see the petitioner? A: Yes, sir. Q: Why is it so or in what capacity? A: [I] [a]m his company’s secretary, sir. Q: Since when did you serve as the company secretary? A: In 2006, sir.
xxxQ: Have you observed any traits or Filipino culture that the petitioner has imbibed during his stay here in the Philippines? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what are those? A: He is patien[t] and sensitive to the needs of his employees, sir. Q: How about upbringing of his children? A: He is strict and he teaches his children to be respectful, sir? Q: Why do you say so? A: Like in my case, sir, he teaches his children not to call me in my first name instead Ate Daisy. Q: How do you know Mr. Sia as a person? A: He is person of good moral character and law abiding citizen, sir. Q: Do you know of any crime or crimes that the petitioner has committed? A: None, sir. Q: How about you, have you been charged of any crime or crimes? A: No, sir. Q: Do you have criminal records with PNP and NBI? A: None, sir. Q: Madam Witness, how many times have you testified in a naturalization case? A: This is my second time, sir. xxx Q: What was your first impression with the petitioner when you first met him? A: At first, us, Filipinos, our first impression to Chinese citizens, suplado at hindi marunong makisama, but later on I found that he’s very kind to Filipinos, ma’am. xxx”[41]
It can thus be inferred that Eddie D. Ferolino and Daisy J. Antonio personally know petitioner-appellee. Their respective statements proved that petitioner-appellee mingled socially with Filipinos and showed his genuine desire to learn and embrace Filipino ideals and traditions. They attested on his specific acts and elaborated on his traits as a person. They are likewise respectable members of their community, of good moral character themselves and esteemed in their social standing. Indeed, they established to the satisfaction of this Court that petitioner-appellee has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law.
In sum, petitioner-appellee has shown substantial and formal compliance with C.A. No. 473, hence, the RTC’s grant of his petition for naturalization is in order.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed Decision dated December 17, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Castillo, M.P., Chairperson and Galapate-Laguilles, Z.T., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo at pp. 42-44.
[2] Rollo at p. 44.
[3] Records at p. 7.
[4] Records at p. 8.
[5] Records at pp. 9-10.
[6] Records at p. 11.
[7] Records at p. 14.
[8] Records at p. 18.
[9] Records at pp. 19-21.
[10] Records at p. 22.
[11] Records at p. 29
[12] Records at p. 30.
[13] Records at p. 31.
[14] Records at p. 32.
[15] Records at p. 33.
[16] Records at p. 34.
[17] Records at pp. 35-36.
[18] Records at p. 37.
[19] Records at p. 48
[20] Records at pp. 306, 311, 316-318.
[21] Records at p. 49.
[22] Rollo at p. 21.
[23] So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007.
[24] Go v. Republic, G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014.
[25] SECTION 7. Petition for Citizenship. — Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and former places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and if the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act; and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition.
[26] G.R. No. L-27580, August 27, 1969.
[27] Chan v. Republic, L-14460, June 30, 1960.
[28] Chua v. Republic, L-19776, September 29, 1964.
[29] Yu Ti v. Republic, L-19913, June 23, 1965; Tan Sang v. Republic, L-19914, June 23, 1965 and Tang Kong Kiat v. Republic, L-19915, June 23, 1965.
[30] Tang Kong Kiat v. Republic, L-19915, June 23, 1965.
[31] Waiving Passport Requirements for Immigrants under Certain Conditions.
[32] An Act To Regulate The Use of Aliases approved on November 7, 1936.
[33] Limson v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014.
[34] Limson v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014.
[35] Limson v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014.
[36] 111 Phil. 211(1961).
[37] Go v. Republic, G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014.
[38] Go v. Republic, G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014.
[39] TSN dated February 22, 2011, pp. 4, 6-7.
[40] TSN dated February 22, 2011, pp. 9-12.
[41] TSN dated April 5, 2011, pp. 4-5, 8-9, 15.