IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHENG KIAT GIAM, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Appeal taken by Cheng Kiat Giam from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Manila dated January 6, 1960 in Civil Case No. 18453
entitled “In The Matter Of The Petition Of Cheng Kiat Giam To Be
Admitted As A Citizen Of The Philippines” denying his petition for
oath-taking as a Filipino citizen.

On December 27, 1953 appellant filed a petition for naturalization
with, the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 18453).
After due hearing, the court, on September 7, 1953, rendered a decision
granting him Philippine citizenship. On November 9, 1959, or more than
six years after the promulgation of such decision, appellant filed a
petition for the reception of his evidence for oath-taking purposes, as
required by Republic Act No. 530. On the date set for the hearing
thereon, the court issued an order stating, among others, that “with
the admission by this petitioner that he has had several cases filed
against him in different offices, agencies and Courts in the
Philippines, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to prove by the
records of those cases that he is innocent of the charges” and reset
the hearing for January 9, 1960. On the latter date, appellant moved
for an indefinite postponement of the hearing in order to give him time
to obtain the necessary clearances. Finding the same to be without
merit, the court, in the order appealed from, denied the same and
dismissed appellant’s petition for oath taking on the ground that the
evidence submitted by him was insufficient to establish that he had
complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 530.

The three questions raised by appellant in his brief may be reduced
to one, namely, that the lower court erred in not allowing him to take
the oath as citizen.

Republic Act No. 530, amending Commonwealth Act No, 430, was enacted
to give the State an additional two year period to test the sincerity
of an applicant for citizenship and to safeguard itself against the
admission of those disqualified, unworthy and unfits who do not measure
up to the requirements of the law (Republic vs. Makalintal, 48 0. G.
4346), In this connection, it appears that although the decision
admitting appellant as citizen was promulgated on September 7, 1953, it
was only more than six years thereafter that he filed his petition for
reception of evidence in connection with his oath-taking, instead of
filing it within two years. This can not but show his lack of interest
in the matter and, in this case, it may be further assumed that such
lack of interest on his part was due to the fact that he had several
criminal cases pending before different agencies of the Government
sufficient to bar his oath-taking as a citizen of the Philippines. The
record further discloses that appellant testified in support of his
petition to be allowed to take the oath as citizen and that during the
direct examination he withheld disclosure of the pendency of such cases
against him. It was only when questioned by the trial judge that he
admitted that there were many pending cases against him since 1953. In
view of these circumstances, the least that can be said is that
appellant’s right to be allowed to take the oath as citizen was an
extremely doubtful one and, as We held in Ly Hong vs. Republic, 109
Phil., 635, in case of doubt concerning the grant of citizenship, such
doubt concerning the grant of citizenship, such doubt concerning the
grant of citizenship, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the
State and against the petitioner.

As regards the denial of appellant’s motion for an indefinite
postponement of the hearing on his petition, We believe that the lower
court had complete discretion on the matter. It appears that when the
original hearing on his petition was held on December 12, 1959, upon
disclosure of the fact that appellant had several cases filed against
him in different agencies, offices and courts in the Philippines, the
lower court adjourned the hearing and reset it for January 9, 1960
precisely to give him an opportunity to procure such evidence as would
show that he had not been convicted in anyone of such cases of any
offense or violation of regulation sufficient to bar his oath taking as
citizen. When the case was called for hearing on January 9, 1960, he
was not ready to do so and moved instead for an indefinite postponement
of the hearing When this motion was denied, he manifested that he was
submitting his petition for resolution with the submission to the court
of a clearance issued by the Committee on Anti-Filipino Activities of
the House of Representatives. The lower court thereafter issued the
appealed order dismissing the petition for oath-taking upon the ground
that the evidence presented by appellant was insufficient to show that
he had complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 530.
Considering these circumstances, We believe that the lower court was
perfectly justified in issuing the appealed order.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

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