IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. VIRGILIO LIM TAN ALIAS BOYBAC, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSIT…

On November 11, 1962 Virgilio Lim Tan alias Boybac filed a
petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental. After publication and hearing, the same was denied by the
aforementioned court in its decision of September 3, 1963. From said
decision petitioner has appealed.

According to the Court a quo, petitioner failed to
satisfactorily prove that (1) he believed in the principles underlying
the Philippine Constitution; (2) he has shown a sincere desire to
embrace Philippine customs, traditions and ideals; (3) he has a
lucrative income; and (4) he is morally irreproachable.

Appellee, Republic of the Philippines, further asserts in its brief
that there was failure to mention in the petition applicant’s former
places of residence, as required by the Revised Naturalization Law.

The point raised by appellee is well taken. In his petition for
naturalization appellant stated but one place of residence, namely,
Toboso, Negros Occidental, alleging that he has continuously resided
therein “for a term of twenty-two years to the present time.”

The record, particularly applicant’s own testimony, however shows
that he received his first year secondary education in Silliman
University at Dumaguete City and his first and second years college
education in the University of San Carlos, Cebu City. During such time,
therefore, appellant must have resided in a place other than that
mentioned in his petition as his residence. Such other place or places
of residence, temporary or otherwise, must also be specified in the
petition for naturalization, as required by Section 7 of the Revised
Naturalization Law. Failure to do so is fatal to the application,
regardless of whether the places not mentioned in the petition are
later supplied by the evidence (Lo vs. Republic, 111 Phil. 1036; Qua vs. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964).

Petitioner, furthermore, is allegedly employed by a partnership
where his father is one of the two partners. In his testimony,
petitioner stated that he is not related to his father’s partner, Tan
Pong (Tsn., p. 3, Amago). Petitioner’s own character witness, Victor
Bedonia, however testified that said partner is the brother of
petitioner’s father and, hence, petitioner’s uncle (Tsn., p. 37,
Amago). Accordingly, the court a quo rightly doubted
petitioner’s good moral character. A false statement by the petitioner
shows lack of irreproachable conduct required by law for naturalization
(Justa Tan vs. Republic, 117 Phil. 533).

No further need therefore obtains for us to pass upon the other points raised by appellant.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from denying the
petition for naturalization is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.