IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.  ALFONSO PO CHU KING, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Alfonso Po Chu King versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a naturalization case. Alfonso Po Chu King, a citizen of Nationalist China residing in Ozamis City, petitioned the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental to be admitted as a Filipino citizen under the Naturalization Law. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, opposed the grant and appealed. The case matters because it gathers, in one decision, the strict standards the Court exacts from an applicant for citizenship: the exemption from the declaration of intention must be fully proven, the income must be lucrative and dependable, and the character witnesses must testify to facts, not conclusions.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed his petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. After the requisite publication, the case was heard, and the Government, represented by the City Fiscal of Ozamis City, filed no formal opposition. The lower court rendered a decision finding the petitioner qualified and granting the petition. The Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning three errors: that the petitioner is not exempt from filing a declaration of intention, that he possesses no lucrative employment, and that the evidence of his character witnesses is insufficient.

Facts

Alfonso Po Chu King alleged that he was born in Iligan City, that he had resided in Ozamis City since 1945, that he was single and a citizen of Nationalist China, and that he was a businessman, an employee and stockholder of the Po Sun Que Sons Corporation earning about three thousand pesos a year. He claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines and graduated from high school at the Ozamis Chinese School. His petition was supported by the joint affidavits of two character witnesses, Maximo Lago and Filemon Tan.

At the hearing, the petitioner did not mention the primary or elementary schools he attended, and no evidence was presented that the Ozamis Chinese School is recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. He tried to prove his birth in the Philippines through his own testimony, the affidavits of his mother and older brother who never took the witness stand, and his alien certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence. He offered no explanation why his birth certificate could not be produced, and no evidence that it had been lost or destroyed.

His income tax return for 1961 showed a net income of two thousand eight hundred fourteen pesos and seventy-four centavos, of which one thousand eight hundred fourteen pesos and seventy-four centavos was salary and one thousand pesos was bonus. His character witnesses, when asked about his conduct and his fitness, gave only general answers such as good, satisfactory, or law-abiding, and yes, sir.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention.
• Whether or not the petitioner possesses a lucrative trade or profession.
• Whether or not the evidence of the character witnesses is sufficient to sustain the allegations of their joint affidavit.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the exemption provisions of the Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act 473, as amended by Commonwealth Act 535. The Court states the requirement in these words:

Considering that section 6 of the Naturalization Law expressly requires that to be exempt from filing declarations of intention Philippine-born applicants must, inter alia, have received both primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioner proved neither the school of his primary education nor that his high school was open to all races and nationalities.

The decision also applies the rule on lucrative income, explaining why contingent earnings are excluded:

Contingent income, like bonuses and commissions, do not constitute dependable remuneration entitled to consideration in determining lucrative trade or work for the purposes of the Naturalization Law.

This bears on the case because the petitioner's one thousand peso bonus cannot be counted, leaving only his salary.

Finally, the decision applies the rule on the weight of witness testimony:

The belief expressed by the witnesses that the petitioner would make a good citizen, and that they recommend his admission to Filipino citizenship, is a mere conclusion unsupported by facts, and, therefore, an opinion entitled to no weight.

This bears on the case because the witnesses gave only conclusions and no instances of good conduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner is not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. He failed to state the schools of his elementary and secondary education and failed to prove that they were recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The Court stressed that the burden lies on the applicant to show that all schools he attended were not limited to students of a particular nationality, and that it is in the formative early years of schooling that lasting impressions are absorbed. Having shown no exemption, and having filed no declaration of intention one year before his petition as required by law, the lower court erred in granting the petition.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner has no lucrative trade or profession. Excluding the bonus as contingent and unsteady, his yearly income of one thousand eight hundred fourteen pesos and seventy-four centavos, even for a single man, is not lucrative or sufficient under the law.

On the third issue, the Court held that the evidence of the character witnesses is insufficient. They merely repeated their affidavit and gave conclusions without any instance showing why the petitioner would be a good citizen, and such opinions are entitled to no weight.

Doctrine

A petitioner for naturalization who fails to mention in his petition the schools where he finished his elementary and secondary education, and fails to prove that those schools were recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, is not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. The burden of proving this exemption rests on the applicant. Contingent income, such as bonuses and commissions, is indefinite and unsteady and cannot be counted in determining whether an applicant has a lucrative trade or profession. The belief of character witnesses that an applicant would make a good citizen, unsupported by facts, is a mere conclusion entitled to no weight.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the burden lies on the applicant to show that all schools he attended are not limited to students of a particular nationality. Examiners use this case to test the exemption from the declaration of intention, the meaning of lucrative income, and the weight of character witnesses in naturalization proceedings.