IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITIONER TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. HARRY ONG PING SENG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

The Solicitor General seeks the
reversal of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the
petition for naturalization of appellee Harry Ong Ping Seng.

Appellant maintains that the
lower court erred in not finding: (1) that appellee’s
petition is invalid; (2) that he is not a person of good moral character; (3)
that he has neither mingled socially with the Filipinos nor evinced a sincere
desire to embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos; and (4)
that he does not speak and write Tagalog.

Upon a review of the record we
find that the appeal is well taken, for: (a) in the statement for the payment of
his additional residence certificate for the year 1961, appellee declared that his gross income for the preceding
year 1960 was only P8,800 (see Exhibit L-1), although the amount set forth in
his income tax return for that year is P13,172.85, thus showing that his moral
character is not as good as it should be; (b) his three (3) children were enrolled
in a school run and operated by Chinese citizens, the student body of which
consists mainly of Chinese nationals the Hope Christian High School at 1242
Benavides Street, Manila, whose principal teacher is S. II. Wang-thus indicating
that petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to mingle socially with the
Filipinos and to embrace their customs, traditions and ideals; (c) the test to which he was submitted
in the lower court did not satisfactorily establish that he had sufficient
knowledge of the Tagalog dialect, the local principal
language which he claims to speak and write; and (d) appellee’s
petition for naturalization states, as regards his residence, “1643 Zurbaran Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila and former residences
were 323-B Zurbaran, Sta. Cruz, Manila”,
notwithstanding the fact that prior thereto he had, also, resided in other
places in Manila No. 285 Blumentritt, No. 631 Mayhaligue, and No. 589 Gandara-thereby violating Section 7 of the Revised
Naturalization Law (Comm. Act No. 473, as amended), which requires that the
petitioner for naturalization should give not only his present address, but,
also, his former places of residence, thus warranting denial of the petition for
naturalization (see Ong Tai vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19418, December 23,
1964; Qua vs. Republic, G. R.
No. L-19834,
October 27,
1964,
Gaw Ching vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-19419, September 30,
1964; Ngo vs. Republic, G. R.
No. L-18319,
May 31,
1963;
Sehwani vs. Republic, G. R. No. 18219,
December 27,
1963; Go
Bon The vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-16813,
December 27,
1963; Koa
Gui vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-13717, July 31,
1962; Keng
Giok vs. Republic, 112 Phil. 986; Pidelo vs. Republic, 97 Phil.
632.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby reversed and appellee’s petition, accordingly,
dismissed, with costs against him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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