G.R. No. L-18885. January 31, 1964
CHIENG YEN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
General his declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen.
Thereafter, on September 16, 1958, he filed before the Court of First
Instance of Manila a petition seeking to become a Filipino citizen.
This petition was published in accordance with law. After hearing, the
court a quo rendered judgment denying the petition on the ground that
petitioner was not a resident of Manila for at least one year prior to
the filing of his petition for naturalization and so the court had no
jurisdiction over the case. Petitioner has appealed.
Petitioner was born in Shantung, China on July 5, 1914. He is a
citizen of the Republic of China. He came to the Philippines on April
16, 1935, having resided therein continuously since then. He is a
businessman with an average annual income of P5,000.00. He is not
delinquent in the payment of hia license fees and taxes. He owns real
properties valued at P55,000.00. He has conducted himself in a proper
manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in
his relation with the government and the community in which he lives.
He has mingled socially with the Filipinos and desires to learn and
embrace their customs, traditions and ideals. He has never been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. He is not suffering
from any incurable or contagious disease.
Petitioner speaks and writes English and Tagalog. He is married to
Francisca Wong, with whom he has five children, namely, Lily Chieng,
Chieng Yen, Jr., Julie Chieng, William Chieng and Wilson Chieng. Lily
Chieng and Chieng Yen, Jr., the only children of school age, are
studying in a public school in Olongapo. Petitioner believes in the
principle underlying the Constitution of the Philippines. He is not
opposed to organized government, nor affiliated with an association of
persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposed to organized government.
The only issue to be determined is whether petitioner is a resident
of Manila for at least one year prior to the filing of his petition for
naturalization, as he tried to prove, or whether he is a resident of
Olongapo, Zambales, as found by the court a quo. This is the only ground on which the petition for naturalization was denied.
In support of his contention that since February, 1955 he has
changed his residence from Olongapo, Zambales to Manila, petitioner
presented both oral and documentary evidence. Briefly stated, the
nature of his evidence is as follows: According to petitioner himself,
he runs a restaurant, a night club and a furniture store at Olongapo,
Zambales. He transferred to Manila since 1955, and in order to run his
different business activities at Olongapo, Zambales, he had appointed a
manager for each of them. He was prompted to transfer his residence to
Manila because the mother of his wife stays there and his wife wanted
to live with her.
Wilfredo Masa testified that he saw petitioner in 1955 while the
latter was transferring his residence from Zambales to Manila because
petitioner’s truck which was loaded with his belongings broke down near
the gasoline station where Masa’s truck was parked. Filemon Verzano,
another witness, testified that every time a friend of his wanted to
buy furniture by installment from petitioner’s store at Olongapo,
Zambales, he would accompany his friend to the house of petitioner at
Fernandez Street in Manila in order that he may be able to talk to
petitioner about the matter. Benito Bernardo, who lives in the same
apartment occupied by petitioner, also testified that petitioner
transferred to Manila since 1955 for he even helped him in unloading
his belongings at the house where he is now living. Lastly, Mansureto
David, the same person who drove the truck used by petitioner in
transferring his belongings to Manila, also testified that he was paid
P100.00 for the job and helped in unloading petitioner’s belongings to
his house at Fernandez St., Manila.
There is, however, enough evidence to show that, notwithstanding the
transfer of the above belongings to Manila as apparently testified to
by petitioner’s witnesses, petitioner continued residing in Olongapo,
Zambales, because his business interests from which he derived his main
source of income are deeply established there. Thus, in his declaration
of intention filed one year before he filed his application for
naturalization, petitioner stated under oath that his residence was
Olongapo, Zambales. In his income tax return filed on February 23,
1958, much after he had filed his petition for naturalization, he
likewise stated under oath that he resided in Olongapo, Zambales. The
last entry in the records of annual report in person of an alien duly
signed hy petitioner also shows that Olongapo is the place where he
reported as a resident alien. These documents which were subscribed to
by him under oath must naturally reflect his true situation as regards
the place of his residence especially that which refers to his
declaration of intention, and as such should deserve more credit and
value than the testimony of petitioner and his witnesses which, as we
know, can easily be fashioned or arranged to suit the interest he
intends to serve.
While it is true that two pieces of documentary evidence were
presented by petitioner to strengthen the evidence he has given
regarding his alleged change of residence, the same are wanting in many
particulars. While Exhibit A, which is a document issued. by the
registration officer of the Bureau of Immigration, certifies that
petitioner had advised him of his change of address from Olongapo,
Zambales to Manila as of February 10, 1955, the advice was given on March 3, 1959, or about six months after the filing of the present petition, and four years
after the supposed change of residence. This flaw is not in the least
cured by the certificate Exhibit T, concerning the same change of
residence, for the investigation alleged to have been made leading to
the issuance of the certificate on March 3, 1959 could not have made
any reference to the date of the alleged change of residence in 1955
for the simple reason that the period mediating between the time of
certification and that of the alleged change of residence is not merely
nominal but substantial. The two dates are too far apart.
Legal residence imports not only intention to reside in a fixed
place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.[1]
The fact that petitioner has no business in Manila and that he has to
attend to his business in Olongapo is a potent reason for disbelieving
any claim that he has transferred his residence to Manila, for this
Court can take judicial notice that Chinese businessmen rarely reside
in a place different from where they have their place of business.[2]
The documents at hand speak eloquently that all the business activities
of petitioner are in Olongapo, Zambales, and it is for this’reason that
he stated in all his official documents that his residence is in that
place.
The purpose of the law in. requiring one year residence in a place
when one seeks naturalization is to facilitate, the determination by
official authorities of the different activities of petitioner,
especially with regard to his qualifications. That is why the law
requires that the petition should state all his places of residence,
whether present or previous. But in this case petitioner even failed to
state some of his former places of residence, a fact which in itself is
a sufficient disqualification.[3] The court a quo, therefore, was justified in declaring itself bereft of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present case.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] Nuval vs. Guray, 52 Phil., 645.
[2] One vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 772.
[3] Keng Giok vs. Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961.