IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF NICOLAS LOO TEE TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. NICOLAS LOO TEE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSIT…

This is an appeal by the Government
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, granting the
petition for naturalization filed by Nicolas Loo Tee on July 17, 1959.

The appeal is predicated upon two
(2) grounds, namely; (1) that petitioner has not conducted himself in a proper
and irreproachable manner in his relations with the constituted government, as
well as with the community in which he is living; and (2) that he does not have
a lucrative trade or occupation.

With respect to the first ground,
the record shows that in October 1957, petitioner’s bodega or warehouse in
Tanauan, Batangas, which, together with its contents, were insured for
P150,000, were destroyed by fire; that the sum paid to him therefor by the
insurance company was only P60,000, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed to
have merchandise worth P100,000 in the bodega and that the same was worth
P30,000, according to him; and that the next year his store, near said bodega,
insured for P25,000, was likewise, burned. Manuel Deonaldo, an agent, of the
Constabulary, who conducted investigations in connection with the application
for naturalization of petitioner herein, whose former petition for
naturalization had been dismissed without prejudice, declared that the
testimony given by petitioner in the course of said investigation wag evasive,
and that, in his (Deonaldo’s) opinion, the burning was intentional in both
cases.

Upon the other hand, petitioner
maintains that no criminal action having been taken against him, despite the
investigation conducted by the authorities immediately after said fires, the
conclusion should be that he has done nothing wrong in connection therewith.
However, this does not show that he has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner in his relations with the Government and with the
community in which he was living, which he is bound to establish as one of the
statutory qualifications for naturalization.

At any rate, it is an established
fact that in his Income tax returns for 1957, 1958 and 1959—which
immediately preceded the hearing of the petition—petitioner re-ported
that his net income for 1957 and 1959 was P1,107.87 and P2,693.96,
respectively, and that he could not ascertain his income for 1958 because of
the destruction of his records therefor by the fire that consumed his store
that year, Considering that petitioner has a wife and seven (7) children, four
(4) of who attend school, it is obvious that the second ground of the
opposition of the Government is well taken (Tan vs. Republic, L-16013, March
30, 1963; Ngo vs. Republic, L-18319, May 31, 1963; Lao vs. Republic, L-17053,
October 30, 1962; Piñero vs. Republic, L-17399, October 30, 1962; Koa Gui vs.
Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962; Ong; vs. Republic, L-15764, May 19, 1961; Ngo
Bun Ho vs. Republic, L-15518, November 29, 1961).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
reversed and the petition dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ.,
concur.