IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SY SUAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, SY SUAN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

The Solicitor General seeks the review of a decision of the Court
of First Instance of Rizal finding “that
petitioner Sy Suan is
qualified to be admitted a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.”
Appellant maintains that the decision appealed from should be re­versed
because:

(1)    the
lower court assumed jurisdiction over the case des­pite the fact that:  (a) petitioner had not filed the requisite
declara­tion of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, although he
is not exempt therefrom, and (b) his former places of
residence were not alleged in the petition; and

(2)    the
lower court erred in rendering said decision for:  (a) petitioner is not a person of good moral
character; (b) he has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner; (c) he has not evinced a sincere desire to become a citizen of the
Philip­pines; (d) he has not enrolled all of his children in public schools or
private schools recognized by the Government, during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines; (e) he does not have a lucrative trade,
profession or occupation; and (f) his witnesses are not credible persons.

As regards the first assignment of error, it appears that in his
application for naturalization, filed on September 4, 1958, petitioner alleged
that his “present place of residence is No. 68-C Arellano St., Malabon, Rizal,
Philippines,” and that his “former residence was 744 Magdalena
Street, Manila.”  He testified,
however, that, upon his arrival in the Philippines, in 1923, he resided with
his father at T. Pinpin Street, Manila; that in 1933, he moved to Tetuan
Street; and that, in 1936, he
established his residence at Platerias Street, Quiapo, where he stayed up to 1941.  We have repeatedly held that failure to state
in a petition for naturalization all of
petitioner’s former places of residence, constitutes a violation of Section 7
of Commonwealth Act No. 473,^[1] which is fatal to the jurisdiction of the
Court to hear and grant said petition.^[2]

With respect to the
second assignment of error, the record shows that:

(a)  On September
26, 1952, petitioner was administratively
fined by the Bureau of Immigration for late registration of his child, Julie Sy Suan, born on July 31, of the
same year.  This notwithstand­ing, he did
not cause his son, Henry Sy Suan,
born on February 12, 1945, to be registered until November 23, 1959, or more than 14 years later and
over a year after the filing of the petition herein and, seemingly, to avoid
obstacles thereto, for which reason he was, once again, fined administratively.  Assuming that the late registration of his
daughter Julie in 1952 had been due either to ignorance of his obligation to
register her or to oversight on his part, the discipli­nary action taken
against him at that time should have been “more
than sufficient warning for him” – in the language used in Cu vs. Republic^[3]
– of his duty to register his son Henry, born much earlier.  Petitioner’s failure to do so until over
seven years later reveals – as stated in said case – his
“little respect for our laws.” Under comparable circumstances, we
held in the Cu case that failure of an alien to comply with the Alien
Registration Act proves that he has not conducted himself in an irreproachable
manner.

(b)  Petitioner’s income from 1957 to 1959 was P9,600.00 a year.  Considering that petitioner has a wife and
eleven (11) children, four (4) of whom were in college, one (1) in high school
and three (3) in grade school, he can not be regarded as having a lucrative
trade, profession or occupation.  Such
was the view taken by this Court in Keng Giok vs. Republic,^[4]
involving an applicant for naturalization who had a wife and five (5) children
of school age actually attend­ing school and a yearly income of P8,656.50.

(c)  At least one of petitioner’s attesting
witnesses, namely, Mrs. Carmen Pavon Albar, did not know him sufficiently to vouch for his
possession of the requisite qualifications, such, for instance, as whether or
not he believes in the principles underlying our Consti­tution, thereby being
short of one of the requirements of Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473,
above referred to.

The Solicitor General, likewise, points out a number of other
factors bolstering up the theory that petitioner is not exempt from the duty to
file a declaration of intention to apply for naturalization, and that he has
not evinced a sincere desire to embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of
the Filipinos, but we deem it unnecessary to discuss these points inasmuch as
those already adverted to suffice to warrant rejection of petitioner’s
application for naturalization.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it
is hereby reversed, and the petition for naturalization in this case,
accordingly, denied, with costs against petitioner-appellee,
Sy Suan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, J., did not take part.

^[1]
“Petition for citizenship.  – Any person desiring to acquire Philippine
citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the
petitioner, set­ting forth his name and surname; his present and former
places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth;
whether single or married and the father of children, the name, age, birth­place
and residence of the wife and of each of the children; x x
x.”

^[2]
Lo vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15919, May 19, 1961; Keng
Giok vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13347, Aug. 31, 1961; Koa Gui
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13717, July 31, 1962; Yao Long vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20910, Nov. 27, 1965; Chan Kiat Huat vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-19579, Feb.
28, 1966; Tan Tian
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-19899, March
18, 1967.

^[3]
G.R. No. L-16073,
March 28, 1961.

^[4]
supra