IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BENITO KO BOK TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Appeal
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the
petition of Benito Ko Bok for naturalization as a citizen of the
Philippines.

The facts recited in the decision of the lower court are as follows:

The
petitioner was born on December 20, 1925, in Ko Chu, China. He
emigrated to the Philippines on or about March 12, 1937, and arrived at
the port of Manila, Philippines, on the vessel Tjitjanlengka. Since his
arrival on March 12, 1937, he resided in the Philippines. Since 1945,
he had resided in Market Street, near the Pasay City Market, and since
1951 he has resided at Taft Avenue. He is single, and his parents had
died already. He has no brother or sister. In 1957, his annual income
was P5,000 and in 1961 his annual income was increased to P12,000.

According
to the petitioner, he believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution; he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and
has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their customs,
traditions and ideals; he is not a polygamist nor a believer in the
practice of polygamy; he does not believe in the necessity and
propriety of violence for the success of men’s ideas; he is not
suffering from any incurable contagious disease; and he has not been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

The
petition is supported by the affidavit of Rodrigo P. Blanco, a lawyer
and Ricardo Deocarega. Blanco testified, among other things, that he
has known the petitioner since 1950 when he was living at Crisostomo
Street, Sampaloc, Manila; the petitioner was then an employee inside
the market of Pasay; he has often times associated with petitioner and
he found him to be a law-abiding citizen whose conduct is morally
irreproachable.

Deocarega testified, among
others, that he has known the petitioner, a person of good moral
character and reputation, for more than ten years; since 1950, said
petitioner was working in a grocery inside the market of Pasay; he is
now running a kerosene business.

Despite the foregoing
evidence for the petitioner, the court dismissed the petition on the
grounds: (1) that petitioner does not possess the required ability to
speak and write English and Tagalog; (2) that he is wanting in
sincerity and candor as shown by several inconsistent statements made
by him; and (3) that one of his character witnesses is not competent to
testify on the reputation and conduct of petitioner.

After
going over the record, We see no reason to disturb the findings of the
lower court. Petitioner’s writings in English (Exhs. 6 and 8 for the
Solicitor General) reveals his deficiency in the language. He could
hardly write simple sentences and, likewise, he had great difficulty in
expressing himself orally. He said many things in English that could
hardly spell out some sense. Again, upon being examined, he could not
write some Tagalog sentences correctly—he omitted some words and
misspelled some.

As to his honestly and sincerity, there
appears from appellant’s evidence some material inconsistencies. While
he stated in testifying that he has resided in Pasay City since 1937,
paragraph 7 of his petition states that he has resided in that city
since 1945. There is likewise some inconsistency in his testimony that
from 1937 to 1950 he resided at Pasay Market Street, Pasay, and from
1951 to the present he has been residing at No. 2741-D Taft Avenue,
Pasay City; and in the sworn statement given by him before the
Philippine Constabulary to the effect that from 1937 to 1961 he resided
at No. 2764 Taft Avenue and from March 1, 1961 to the present he has
resided at No. 2741-D Taft.

The
appellant explains that No. 2764 Taft Avenue was his business or postal
address while No. 2741-D Taft Avenue was his residence, which means
that he could be reached or found at both places which are fronting
each other. But this explanation loses force in appellant’s own Exhibit
M (Change of Residence), certifying that he has advised the
Commissioner of Immigration of his change of residence from No. 2764
Taft Avenue to No. 2741-D Taft Avenue, effective March 1, 19610 Such
inconsistent statements show that appellant is not very truthful and
that he lacks the irreproachable conduct to become a Filipino citizen.

Again,
we agree with the lower court in finding that witness Ricardo Deocarega
is not competent to testify on the reputation and conduct of
petitioner. The said witness declared that he met petitioner only in
1950 and for the second time in 1954. Thereafter, they met casually at
the gasoline station operated by petitioner-appellant. Hence, from 1937
to 1950, and from 1950 after their first meeting until 1954, the
witness had not observed the appellant closely enough to be competent
to testify on his proper conduct and behavior during the latter’s
period of residence here. The same thing may be said of Rodrigo Blanco,
the other character witness, who came to know petitioner only in 1950.^[1]

In addition to the findings of the lower court, one objection raised
by the Solicitor General against the petitioner-appellant is the fact
that even before he secured in 1959 a court order authorizing him to
change his name from “Ko Bok” to “Benito Ko Bok” he was already using
the latter name in his business dealings, a fact disclosed by his 1956,
1957 and 1958 income tax returns. The use of an alias without authority
from the court is in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142. On the part
of petitioner-appellant, his unauthorized use of the name “Benito Ko
Bok” constituted misconduct in his dealings with the Government.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower
court dismissing the petition for naturalization is hereby affirmed.
Costs against the petitioner-appellant.

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

---

^[1] See Jesus Lim Ching Tian vs. Reoublic, G. R. No. L-12001, February 28, 1961; Chua Pun vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-16825, Dec. 22, 1961; Wang I Fu vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-15819, Sept. 29, 1962; Uy Tian It vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-18248, Dec. 27, 1963; and other cases on the subject.