IN RE: PETITION TO BE ADMITTED CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. GERVACIO CABRALES CU, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal interposed by petitioner Gervacio Cabrales Cu from
the decision of the Court of First instance of Ilocos Norte (in Nat.
Case No. 20), denying his petition for naturalization as a Filipino
citizen.

On February 7, 1952, petitioner Gervacio Cabrales
Cu filed with the above-mentioned court a petition for naturalization
(Nat. Case No. 2) which, after due hearing, was granted by the court.
Upon appeal by the Solicitor General, this Court (in G. R. No. L-7836,
prom. October 25, 1955), reversed the decision of the trial court, on
the grounds that (1) petitioner failed to prove he is a citizen of
Nationalist China; and (2) petitioner presented as witness only one of
the signers of the two affidavits of good moral character. Said
reversal was, however, “without prejudice to the filing of a new
petition by the applicant with proper evidence.”

In
pursuance of our aforementioned decision, petitioner on April 22, 1958,
filed with the same court a second petition for naturalization, in the
prayer of which he asked that he either be admitted to Philippine
citizenship, or be declared a Filipino citizen.

According to
the evidence on record, petitioner is the son of Cu Tim Cu, a Chinese,
and Inocencia Cabrales, a Filipina. He was born in Laoag, Ilocos Norte,
on June 19, 1919. Since his birth, he never left the Philippines. He
studied up to the sixth grade, elementary school. He knows how to read
and write Ilocano and English. On December 10, 1942, he married
Encarnacion Deniega in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. Out of this marriage, 7
children were born, 4 of whom are studying in the public schools at
Bacarra, while 3 have not yet enrolled due to their tender age. Since
his marriage in 1942, he has continuously resided in Bacarra, where he
had been and is still engaged as a merchant with an annual income of
P900.00. He testified that he believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his stay in the
Philippines in his relations with the constituted government, as well
as with the community wherein he lives; that he has mingled with the
Filipinos and have evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their
customs, traditions, and ideals; that he is not opposed to organized
government, and not affiliated with any association or group of persons
who uphold and teach doctrines opposed to organized government or
defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault or assasination for the success and predominance of men’s
ideals; and that he is not a polygamist or a believer in its practice
and has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, nor
is he suffering from an incurable contagious disease. He has no real
property. His baptismal and marriage certificates state that he is a
Filipino. Believing himself to be a Filipino, he launched his candidacy
for municipal councilor of Bacarra in 1947. However, according to him,
he was unable to continue his candidacy, because somebody questioned
his citizenship. Having been found that he is a Chinese citizen, his
certificate of candidacy was cancelled by the court.

In the
present petition (the second), petitioner alternatively, seeks to be
declared a Filipino citizen, on the ground that prior to the passage of
Commonwealth Act No. 625 (governing election of Philippine citizenship
of those whose mothers are Philippine citizens) on June 7, 1941, he has
already performed certain overt acts showing that he is a Filipino,
namely: (1) in 1940, as a Filipino, he paid his residence certificate;
(2) in 1940-41, he had secured, as a Filipino a professional driver’s
license; (3) when he got married, it was stated in the marriage
certificate that he was a Filipino; and (4) he had voted on 2 elections
after the liberation.

In denying his petition for naturalization, the trial court, in its judgment of June 1, 1959, stated as follows:

“In
this case, although the petitioner has presented evidence that he has
never been charged or convicted of any crime before our courts of
Justice, by his own admission (t. s. n. pp. 18-19), he has willfully
violated the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Alien Registration Act of 1950
by not registering himself as an Alien in accordance with the provision
of this Act. His exculpatory allegation, however, is that because he
believed himself to be a Filipino, he did not register anymore as an
alien (t. s. n. p. 19). But assuming for the sake of argument that
because he believes himself to be a Filipino citizen and for that
matter, according to him, it was not necessary for him to register as
an alien, it cannot be denied because he himself admitted it that in
1947 he had not been able to continue his candidacy for councilor,
because it has been found out that he was and still is a Chinese citizen (t. s. n. p. 20). This
would have been an indication that he should have complied with the
Alien Registration Act of 1950. Again, when the Supreme Court has ruled
that one of the reasons in denying petitioner’s former petition for
naturalization was his failure to present, as evidence of his
citizenship, his Alien Registration Certificate, that would have been
more than sufficient warning for him to register himself as an alien.
If the petitioner has only a little respect for our laws and the
decision of our Supreme Court he should have immediately registered
himself as an alien considering that he has been given by the Supreme
Court the privilege to file another petition for naturalization.

“But
unfortunately, the herein petitioner has been supercillious and has
stubbornly disobeyed the law by persistently refusing to register
himself as an alien in accordance with the provisions of the Alien
Registration Act of 1950. And where it not for the advise of his lawyer
(t.s.n. p. 23, 29) it can safely be assumed that the herein petitioner
up to this date would still be flaunting the Alien Registration Law.
The record of the case shows that the herein petitioner has after oil
consented to register himself as an alien on December 9, 1958, Exh. B
long after his present petition has been filed and one (1) day before
it has been ordered scheduled for hearing. * * * In the case at bar, petitioner’s failure to register as an alien, in accordance with the Alien Registration Act of 1950 is intentional. He should have been prosecuted in accordance with Sec. 6 of the said law.

“It
must be considered that the amended Naturalization Law required the
petitioner to conduct himself not only properly but also irreproachably
with the constituted government. Under the circumstances, as above
narrated, can it be said that the petitioner herein has conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines with the constituted government?

“Apart
from the foregoing, although the petitioner has presented two witnesses
whose credibility the court has no reason to doubt, said witnesses
however, as insurers of the petitioner’s qualifications, have woefully
failed. They have not been able to state satisfactorily during the
trial that the petitioner possesses all the Ratifications prescribed by
the law for acquiring Philippine citizenship and none of the
disqualifications therein enumerated. * * *

“In his
petition, the petitioner alleges alternative claim to be declared
Filipino citizen for the overt acts he has committed. During the trial
petitioner testified that as a Filipino in 1940 he has paid his
residence certificate and in 1940-41 he also has secured as a Filipino
his professional driver’s license. His testimony to that effect is not
enough. He should have presented as evidence the said residence
certificate and the said professional driver’s license. It is true that
in his marriage contract dated December 10, 1942 (Exh. C), it is stated
therein that the petitioner and his wife are both Filipinos and
although it may also be true that the herein petitioner has already
voted for two elections after the liberation, these two events,
however, took place after the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 625, on
June 7, 1941. This law prescribes the procedure the petitioner should
have followed in order that he could elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with subsection 4, Sec. 1, Art. IV of the Constitution.

“It
appearing that according to the evidence submitted the herein
petitioner has not complied with the provision of this law,
petitioner’s claim to be declared Filipino citizen, because of these
overt acts, is without any merit.” (Italics supplied.)

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision, but the same was denied by the court. Hence, this appeal.

The decision appealed from must be affirmed. We fully agree to and
adopt the conclusions of the trial court in respect to petitioner’s
failure to register as an alien as required by law. Additionally, we
find that petitioner, who has annual income of only P900.00, with a
wife and 7 children to support (4 of said children are already
schooling) has, clearly, no lucrative lawful occupation (Sec. 2[4],
Rev. Naturalization Law). As this Court has stated in the recent case
of Almonte Uy vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 696, if admitted a
citizen of this country, he (petitioner) may only be an addition to the
many problems that now confront the nation. (See also Swee Din Tan vs. Republic, 109 Phils., 287, citing Lim vs. People, 92 Phil., 522; 49 Off. Gaz., 122; Tiong vs. Republic, 94 Phil., 473; 50 Off. Gaz., 1025; Uy Tiao Hong vs. Republic, 101 Phil., 77; 54 Off. Gaz., 629; Republic vs. Yap, L-11187, April 23, 1958; Republic vs. Lim, L-3030, Jan. 31, 1951; and Pang Kok Hua vs. Republic, 91 Phil, 254.

With this conclusion, it becomes needless to discuss the other points raised in the briefs of the parties.

Wherefore, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner-appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.