IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF KHO ENG POE TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, KHO ENG POE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND …

Appeal taken by the Republic of the Philippines from the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato “finding the petition filed
by Kho Eng Poe to be meritorious, granting the same and declaring him a
Filipino citizen, subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 530.”

On January 12, 1961 the Office of the Solicitor General, through
Pacifico P. de Castro, Assistant Solicitor General, and Eriberto D.
Ignacio, Solicitor, filed a motion to withdraw the appeal, alleging
that it had found, after a perusal of the record, that the grounds or
reasons that induced the Provincial Fiscal of Cotabato to interpose the
appeal, could not be sustained, and that the Office of the Solicitor
General could find no other ground upon which to assail the
qualifications of petitioner. After considering the merits of the
motion, we denied it, and further required the Solicitor General to
file the brief on behalf of the State or to make of record whether he
would submit the case on the strength of his motion to withdraw the
appeal. The same, solicitors thereafter made of record that they were
submitting the case for decision upon the allegations made in their
motion to withdraw the appeal.

Petitioner subsequently filed his brief.

It appears that on March 6, 1958 petitioner filed with the lower
court his petition for naturalization. The notice of hearing required
by law was duly published, and on December 3, 1958 the Solicitor
General filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition did
not allege that petitioner had filed a declaration of intention, and
that no such declaration was attached to the petition as required by
law. While said motion was pending resolution, petitioner filed an
amended petition which made it unnecessary for the lower court to pass
upon the former. The amended petition was also published as required by
law. On Oetober 3, 1959, after petitioner had submitted his evidence, a
formal or written opposition was filed by the Assistant Provincial
Fiscal of Cotabato alleging as grounds therefor that petitioner had no
religion and that the supporting witnesses had not known him for a
period of ten years as required by law. Thereafter the opposition
called its first witness in the very person of petitioner.

Upon the evidence the lower court found the following facts:

“The petitioner was born on February 22, 1931, in
Chingkang, District of Fookien; China. His father is Kho Hau Sun alias
Hau Sun and his mother is Chua Sin Sam—both spouses are Chinese
citizens. The petitioner is at present a subject of the Republic of
China and is a man of good moral character, as shown by the certificate
issued to him by the Chinese Consul for Mindanao and: Sulu (Exhibit H).

“He is legally married to his wife Uy Siok Ching who is presently
living with him at Villaceron Street Extension, Cotabato City. Out of
this marital union with his wife, two children were born, namely, Kho
Wan Huen, born on October 2, 1956, in Cotabato, Cotabato, and Kho Wan
Huy, also born in Cotabato, Cotabato, on November 6, 1957. The births
of these children were registered in the office of the local Civil
Registrar of Cotabato (Exhibits K and M) both of them were registered
as aliens (Exhibits L and N). These children are not going to school as
they are not yet of school age. His wife is also registered as an alien
with the Philippine Immigration authorities (Exhibits J and J-1).

“Since petitioner came to the Philippines on October 7, 19S8, he stayed
in Manila until he came to Cotabato, Cotabato, in February 1951. While
in Manila he studied at the Anglo-Chinese School and finished his first
and second year high school at the Loyal Heart Institute. He continued
his studies at the Far Eastern University and finished his third and
fourth year high school in that institution of learning. From the time
he landed in the port of Manila on October 7, 1938, he has continuously
resided in the Philippines until at present.

“The petitioner
has mingled and associated with Filipinos and, has evinced a sincere
desire to learn and embrace their customs, traditions and ideals. He
has willingly and voluntarily contributed to civic and charitable
institutions.

“The petitioners has not filed any other petition with any other Court in the Philippines except the instant petition.

“He speaks and writes English and Tagalog. He also understands the
Maguindanao Moro and some of the Visayan dialects, but he cannot write
them.

“The petitioner has paid all taxes due from him to the government.

“He believes in the principles underlying our constitution and government.

“He is opposed to communism and is not a member of any subversive society or organization.

“He does not suffer of any contagious or incurable disease (Exhibit “S”).

“He has not been accused or convicted of any crime (Exhibits O, P, Q and R).

“Under the law of the Republic of China, Filipinos can become also citizens of that country.”

Upon the above facts the lower court ruled that petitioner had
established “by his testimony and the testimony of his character
witnesses that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a Filipino.”

A perusal of the record, however, has convinced us that, while
petitioner’s testimony seems to have established the facts found by the
lower court, the same thing cannot be said of the testimony of his
character witnesses.

We have held heretofore that it is incumbent upon a petitioner for
naturalization to prove affirmatively by his own testimony and that of
at least two credible witnesses, not only that he possesses all the
qualifications required under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 47S,
but also that he does not possess any of the disqualifications provided
under Section 4 of the same Act. The testimony of petitioner’s
witnesses on the second requirement is, in our opinion, manifestly
insufficient.

One of said witnesses, Jose S. Lim, testified on this matter as follows:

Aside from his answer to the last question quoted above, the
witness gave no other testimony calculated to prove affirmatively that
petitioner does not possess any of the disqualifications provided by
law. His answer to the effect that petitioner is not in any way
disqualified “because he possesses all the qualifications to become a
Filipino” does not prove affirmatively that petitioner does not possess
any of the disqualifications. To possess the qualifications is one
thing, and it is another not to possess any of the disqualification.
This is the reason why in previous decisions we held that it is
incumbent upon petitioner in any case like the present to prove
affirmatively, by his own testimony and that of the credible witnesses
required by law, both his possession of the qualifications to be
admitted as a citizen and his not possessing any one of the
disqualifications provided by law.

We have noticed exactly the same insufficiency in the testimony of
petitioner’s other witness, Jose de la Rosa, the pertinent part of
which reads as follows:

Petitioner having failed to prove affirmatively by the testimony of
credible witnesses in the required number that he does not possess any
of the disqualifications provided by Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No.
473, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, with the result
that petitioner’s petition for naturalization is hereby denied. With
costs.

Bengzon, C. J. Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Re gala and Makalintal, JJ., concur