IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF NGO BUN HO, ALIAS GUICA. NGO BUN HO, ALIAS GUICA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APP…

The Republic appeals from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Lanao (in Nat. Case No. 716), admitting petitioner Ngo Bun
Ho, alias Guica, to Philippine citizenship.

The records disclose the petitioner was born in Hosan, Amoy, China,
on November 3, 1908. He immigrated to and arrived in the Philippines
aboard the S.S. Susana, in April, 1919. Since his said arrival, he has
been residing here (at Marawi City) continuously for more than 30
years. During said period, he had been married 3 times. His first wife
was Anastacia Tormis, whom he married in 1928 and with whom he has 8
children, namely, Consolacion, Jose, Enecita, Nicanora, Restituta,
Genoveva, Florentino, and Quintin, all surnamed Ngo.^[1]
Of these children, Consolacion and Enecita are married while Jose is
living independently of petitioner, and is managing his own business.
But 5 of them—Nicanora, Restituta, Genoveva, Florentino, and
Quintin—are living with, and are dependent on, petitioner for support.
Petitioner’s second wife was Francisca Yee whom he married in May, 1945
and with whom he has a child named Victor Ngo,^[2]
who is also dependent on petitioner for support. His third wife was
Pomposa Hitrada whom he married on February 13, 1948 and with whom he
has a child named Hernando Ngo ^[3]
who is likewise dependent on him for support. Petitioner owns and
manages a store or business at Marawi City, from which he derives an
annual income of P3,000. He speaks and writes English and Tagalog
fairly, and has a good knowledge of the Cebuano dialect. He also speaks
the Maranaw dialect fairly. He has enrolled his children of school age
in private schools (at Marawi City), where Philippine history,
government, and civics are taught. He has conducted himself in a proper
and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his stay here,
mingled socially with the Filipinos, and embraced their customs and
traditions. He is not opposed to organized government and does not
believe in the use of force to overthrow the same. He is not a
polygamist, and is not suffering from any incurable or contagious
disease. He has not been convicted of any crime.

As character witnesses, petitioner presented Hadji Mender
Ampuan, a farmer at Madaya, Marawi City, and Valentin Daligcon, Clerk
of the Municipal Court of Marawi City.

We find the Republic’s appeal meritorious. It appears that as a
merchant or businessman, petitioner’s annual income is only P3,000.00.
Said business or occupation can hardly be considered lucrative under
Section 2(4) of the Revised Naturalization Law considering that
petitioner has 7 children (all of school age and actually attending
private schools, with petitioner paying schools’ fees for them), aside
from himself, to support (See Keng Giok vs. Republic, 112 Phil., 986
and Almonte Uy vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 694; 60 Off. Gaz., [10] .1416
citing Swee Bin Tan vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 287).

Furthermore, it appears that petitioner had been delinquent in the payment of his license tax on liquor in 1957,^[4] and had violated the Minimum Wage Law,^[5]
which delinquency (although compromised) and violation (although
amicably settled), prove that, petitioner has not conducted himself in
a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted
government as well as with the community in which he is living”, as
required in Section 2(3) of the Revised Naturalization Law.

Wherefore, the petition is denied, and the decision of the
trial court is hereby reversed and set aside, without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Their ages at date of hearing are 26, 25, 23, 21, 20, 19, 18, and 15, respectively.

^[2] 12 years old date of hearing.

^[3] 6 years.

^[4] tsn, pp. 41-56, hearing of Oct. 16, 1958; see also Exh. 4 and R, p. 298, Record.

^[5] tsn, pp. 56-75, hearing of Oct. 16, 1958; see also Exh. 9 to 11, pp. 304-307, Record.