BIENVENIDO YAP, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Bienvenido Yap was born of Chinese parentage on May 27, 1918, in Capiz, where
he has been continuously residing ever since. He speaks and writes English and
Hiligaynon, the Visayan language in the locality. He started his studies in the
Capiz Chinese Elementary School and continued in the Capiz High School where he
was in the fourth year at the outbreak of the last war. He is married to Gloria
Lim, a native, born of a Chinese father and by this union he has two children
born in Capiz, Wilfred Yap on May 26, 1944 and Roubin Yap on April 12, 1946. He
is engaged in business with an invested capital of P10,000. During the
occupation he rendered services to the guerrillas.

The lower court granted his application for Philippine Citizenship.

The Solicitor General raises two questions in this appeal.

He contends, in the first place, that the lower court erred in not finding
that the applicant ha a failed to establish satisfactorily that he had
previously filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines and that he is not exempted from the prerequisite of filing said
declaration.

Applicant alleged under oath in his petition that he had filed his
declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen with the office of the
Solicitor General in 1941, although all the records have been lost by reason of
the war. This allegation is not disputed in any answer or objection and is
supported by the unrebutted testimony of applicant, who was duly cross-examined
in the trial court. This is enough evidence. Appellant’s contention that
applicant’s testimony should be supported by documentary proof is not well
taken. There is nothing in the law in support of such requirement.

The second and last question raised by the Solicitor General is that the
lower court erred in not finding that applicant has failed to establish that the
laws of China grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens
thereof.

We find on record Exhibit E, a document supposed to be a copy of the Chinese
law of citizenship, where it appears that a Filipino can acquire Chinese
citizenship by naturalization. Although we do not see any certification attached
to the exhibit, the lower court’s decision states that applicant presented a copy
of the Chinese law certified by a clerk Of Court of Cebu. The pronouncement is
in a way supported by the fact that Exhibit E carries the dry seal of the Court
of First Instance of Cebu. The pronouncement Of the lower court has not been
disputed, and it can be assumed that when the copy was submitted to the lower
court, the latter must have seen a certification attached to it which might have
been misplaced. At any rate, the controversy appears to be academic, considering
the fact that at the hearing of this case, counsel for appellant stated that in
another case there is such certified copy of the Chinese law where it appears
that Filipinos are given the right to acquire Chinese citizenship.

There being no error in the appealed decision, the same is
affirmed.

Parás, Actg. C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones,
Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.