N THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEONIDES S. TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEONIDAS S. TAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR…

On March 18, 1961, Leonidas S. Tan, a citizen of
the Republic of China, filed a petition for naturalization to the Court in the
Court of First Instance of Leyte alleging, among
others, that he was a resident of Abuyog, Leyte since his birth in 1937; that he was single, and an
employee with an average annual income of P2,000.00.
After its due publication, the petition was heard during which, it was
established that petitioner was employed as salesman in a commercial
establishment in Manila since 1958,
although he often goes home to visit his parents, relatives, and friends in
Leyte; that since July, 1961,
his income had increased to P250.00 a month aside from bonus and allowance.
Pedro Gallego, a former mayor of Abuyog, Leyte and school teacher for 14 years, and Nazario Closa alias Esperidion Herboso, former chief
of police of Mahaplay, Leyte, and also a former school teacher,
testified and vouched for petitioner’s good moral character while in
Leyte. On January 27, 1962, the court granted the petition
upon the finding that petitioner possesses all the qualifications for
naturalization and has complied with the requirements prescribed by law. The
Staid appealed.

The Solicitor General first raises the question of improper venue. It is
claimed that as petitioner has been residing in
Manila since 1958, the petition
should have been filed therein and not in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Naturalization
Law.

As held by this Court, the residence requirement for purposes of determining
the venue of a petition for naturalization, refers not to petitioner’s presence
or actual or physical stay in the province, but to legal residence from which he
could or might depart or be absent temporarily, and to which he always intended
to return.^[1] In the instant case,
petitioner not only alleges that he does not intend to abandon his legal
residence in Leyte, but such intention was really
indicated by his occasional return to Leyte to visit
his relatives and friends.

The petition, nevertheless, must be denied. As afore-stated, petitioner
declared in the application, which was published, that his present residence was
in Abuyog, Leyte. It may be pointed out that under Section
7 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Comm. Act 473), the petitioner is required
not only to state his present address, but even his L actual residence.^[2] or places where petitioner has actually
resided. The purpose of the law, as already declared, is to facilitate the
tracking or checking up, by private individuals or government agencies, on the
different activities of petitioner, that may be material to the petition.^[3] And, the failure to state in the petition all
the places where petitioner has resided is fatal to his application for
naturalization.^[4]

Furthermore, it may be said, that while his character witnesses may have
personal knowledge of petitioner’s behavior during his stay in Leyte, these witnesses cannot be considered qualified to
become “insurers” of his good moral character while in Manila, where he has
stayed for the last three years immediately preceding the filing of the
petition.^[5] And, since the law requires
proof of proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of the
alien’s residence in the Philippines,^[6]
the evidence herein presented falls short of the requirement of the law.

Neither has applicant proven that he has a lucrative occupation within the
contemplation of the Revised Naturalization law. His basic or regular income is
only from P2,000.00 to P3,000.00 annually, which, in
view of the present high cost of living and prevailing low value of our
currency, is deemed insufficient to meet the requirement of the law.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the
petition is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1] King v
Republic, 89 Phil. 4; Republic vs. Tan Bee Chiu, G.R. L-2687, May 23, 1951; Republic v. Tan Bee
Chiu, G.R. No. L-12409, April 1,
1959.

^[2] Uytengsu vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-6379, Sept. 29, 1954.

^[3] Galvin Lo v. Republic, G. R.
No. L-15919, May 19, 1961;
Kong Giok v. Republic, G.R. No. L-13347,
Aug 31, 1961.

^[4] Co vs. Republic, G.R. No.
L-15794, Dec. 29, 1962;
Ngo vs Republic, G.R. No. L-18319, May 31, 1963; Serwani v. Republic, No. L-18219, Dec. 27, 1963; Gaw Ghing
vs. Republic, G.R. No. 19419, Sept 30,
1964.

^[5] See Sy Pifiero v. Republic G.R. No.
17399, Oct. 30, 1962.

^[6] Section 2, par. 3, Com. Act
473.