IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ARSENIO G. PE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ARSENIO G. PE, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR A…

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Antique denying the petition of Arsenio Go Pe for naturalization.

The
ground upon which the trial court disapproved the petition was brought
to light in the course of petitioner’s presentation of evidence, when
one of his own character witnesses testified that the Applicant owns a
public utility passenger truck plying from Guisijan to Iloilo. Later,
this witness amended his testimony and said that the truck belongs to
Arsenio’s father, and that petitioner only manages it. Applicant, for
his part, belied both versions, asserting that the public utility truck
is owned by one Zacarias Sarabia; that because its owner usually
borrows tools from them, said truck is frequently seen in their
premises.

From the circumstances elicited, the trial court
has found that the truck in question is definitely owned either by
petitioner or his father; and since applicant admitted knowing that
ownership of a public utility vehicle by him or his father violates the
Public Service Act, he cannot claim to have “conducted himself in a
proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted
government as well as with the community in which he is living” (Sec.
2, C.A. 473).

Said the trial court—

“The
explanation offered by Pe fails to convince the Court that neither he
nor his father owns the truck. Baylon’s testimony, replete as it is
with particulars as to where the truck is kept, its route, the fare
charged, and who actually operates it, leaves no doubt in the mind of
the Court that the truck is owned by either the petitioner or his
father.

“Baylon is a close neighbor and friend of Pe and
his family. Pe said that he choose Baylon out of his many acquaintances
in Laua-an to be one of his character witnesses because he knew him to
be truthful. Later, when he remembered that Baylon’s testimony on the
matter of the truck may be damaging, he said that sometimes, he
misinterpreted things.” (p. 24, Record on Appeal).”

A review of the record fails to disclose anything that warrants ja
reversal of this finding. This fact was brought out no less than by the
applicant’s own witness in a tenor that was distinctly intended to draw
a favorable inference on. the civic spirit of the applicant by the
latter’s act of even offering “the services of their truck freely
whenever it is needed by the municipality * * * “.

Petitioner
in this appeal suggests alternative explanations as to the ownership of
the truck: It was just left in petitioner’s premises for lack of
parking space; it was left in the place to load it with petitioner’s
cargo to Iloilo; it could even be owned by the applicant’s own brother
who is already a naturalized Filipino. But then, the burden of proof
was on the applicant, and it does not appear that he has adduced
sufficient proof to overcome what his own witness spontaneously
declared, not even the testimony of the alleged registered owner,
Sarabia. Not impugned by the record, the trial court’s findings in this
regard should not be disturbed.

Moreover, petitioner’s claim
that he earns P250 a month is not supported by the evidence.
Conveniently, this income allegedly represents applicant’s salary as
manager in his father’s business, and aside from Arsenio himself, was
averred only by his father in a statement that is not even sworn to
(Exhibit 0). Both this salary and applicant’s alleged income from
farming as reported in his tax returns for 1958 and 1959 (Exhibit P;
P-l) do not appear in the returns for the previous years (Exhibit P-2;
P-3), during which, in fact, petitioner was exempted from tax on the
basis of an income of only P1,800 per annum. His increased income as
shown in the tax returns for 1958 and 1959 deepens its dubious tint
considering further that his petition for naturalization was instituted
on May 26, 1958, the same year that his income suddenly increased.
Consequently, petitioner has also failed to prove satisfactorily that
he has a lucrative trade, profession or occupation, which is another
ground for denying his petition, since he does not appear to own real
state worth P5,000.

In naturalization cases, the burden is on
the applicant to prove by competent and satisfactory evidence that he
has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications specified
by law. The naturalization law should be strictly construed, and doubts
resolved, against the applicant (Yap Joco vs. Com. 40 Off. Gaz., 1235;
Cho vs. Republic, 106 Phil. 755; 57 Off. Gaz., [47] 8477, Karam Singh
vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 622, 51 Off. Gaz., [10] 5172. Without objection
by the government, the court may motu proprio deny the application if
the evidence fails to prove that all requirements have been met (Yap
Chin vs. Republic, 93 Phil., 215; Singh vs. Republic, supra).
Accordingly, there is no merit to the contention that a written
opposition must be filed by the government before the petition could be
denied.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.