UY CHING HO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Uy Ching Ho seeks to
become a Filipino citizen in a petition filed before the Court of First Instance
of Negros Oriental. On December 22, 1961, the court a quo granted the petition
subject to the two-year limitation provided by law. The government took the
present appeal.

Petitioner was born in Amoy,
China on June 1, 1914. He arrived in
Cebu
City on February 26, 1926 and after one week he went to
Valencia, Negros Oriental where he resided until January, 1929. He
surrendered his landing certificate of arrival to the Commissioner of
Immigration and was issued in its place an immigration certificate of residence.
Since January, 1929, he has resided at Alfonso
Street, Dumaguete
City. He finished his seventh grade
at the Bais
Elementary School and his first year
high school at the Negros
Oriental
Provincial High
School.

He was married to Howa Lu on October 22, 1950 before Justice of the Peace of Jolo, Sulu. He has five children
with her who were all born in Dumaguete, whose names
and are: Anthony Uy, 9 years; Benjamin Uy, 8 years; Annabel Uy 6 years;
Vivian Uy, 4 years; and Celso Uy, 2 years. He is a Roman
Catholic and all his children were baptized as Catholics, their sponsors being
all Filipinos. Anthony, Benjamin, Annabel, and Vivian are at present studying at
the Dumaguete
Chinese
School, an institution recognized by
the government which teaches Philippine history, civics and government. Said
school is not limited to students of any race, creed or nationality. Petitioner
has resided in the
Philippines for
more than 34 years and has never gone to
China. He read
correctly an excerpt from the first page of the vernacular magazine “Bisaya” and took down some dictation in English correctly
and translated the same fairly well into the Visayan
dialect.

Petitioner owns the building where his store is located in the Dumaguete public market. He has been a merchant since
January, 1950 but before that time he was a salesman for the Du An Sim
Store in Dumaguete
City. In 1958 his income was P4,659.88; in 1959 P6,971.27, and in 1960 P7,799.34.

Petitioner claims that he has not committed any crime involving moral
turpitude. He has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during
his entire period of residence in the
Philippines in
his relation with the government and the community where he resides. He believes
in the principle underlying the Philippine constitution. He is not opposed to
organized government. He is not affiliated with any association or group of
persons which upholds and teaches doctrines subversive to organized government.
He does not defend or teach the necessity of employing violence, personal
assault or assassination for the success of men’s ideas. He is not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy.
He is not suffering from any contagious disease. He is a member of the
Filipino-Chinese Catholic Association of Dumaguete. He
is not a communist. He mingles socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the
Filipinos. He has helped civic, charitable and religious organizations in Dumaguete in their fund campaign drives.

Ligorio Luzada declared
that he was born in Oslob, Cebu, and has resided in
Dumaguete
City since 1924. He was a market
inspector in the public market of Dumaguete
City for more than 20 years. He had
known petitioner since 1940 because the latter owns a store in the public market
of Dumaguete
City. He often goes to see petitioner
at his store in order to collect cash tickets. He regards petitioner as
qualified to become a Filipino citizen because he has good moral character, is
law-abiding, and has no vices. Petitioner is a merchant, helpful and
cooperative, kind and sympathetic to his Filipino customers and friends. He pays
all his taxes promptly. He never violated any rule or regulation of the public
market nor any law or ordinance. He mingles socially with the Filipinos and has
shown a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals
of the Filipinos.

Eleuterio Katada also
declared that he was born in Dumaguete
City where he resided for 44 years.
He was formerly a councilor of said city but at present he owns a tailoring shop
at the Dumaguete public market. He has known
petitioner since 1940. He is of good moral character and has no vices. He does
not discriminate against Filipinos in his business. He has conducted himself in
a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the
Philippines in
his relation with the duly constituted government, as well as with the community
in which he resides. He is law-abiding and cooperative with the authorities. He
mingles socially with the Filipinos by attending parties given by Filipinos and
inviting his Filipino friends in his home. He finished his first year high
school at the Negros
Oriental
Provincial High
School at Dumaguete
City.

The government contends that the court a quo erred in granting
petitioner the privilege of citizenship in the absence of evidence that he has
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period
of residence in the
Philippines in
his relation to the constituted government as well as to the community in which
he lives.

This contention is well-taken. Our law requires that one who applies for
Philippine citizenship should support his claim with sworn statements of two
character witnesses who should attest to the fact that he has all the
qualifications to become so, one of them being that he is a person of good moral
character and has conducted himself irreproachably during the entire period of
his residence in the country. This requirement must be clearly established and
cannot be left merely to conjecture. And here that situation does not obtain,
for the two witnesses who testified in his behalf fall short of the competence
to do so. Thus, both Ligorio Luzada and Eleuterio Katada emphatically declared that they only came to know
petitioner since 1940 when the evidence clearly shows that he landed in the
Philippines on February 26, 1926 and resided therein ever since up to the
present time. There is, therefore, no evidence as regards his good repute and
behavior from said date until 1040 or during an interval of 14 years-This long
gap argues eloquently against the qualification of good conduct and behavior
that the law requires of an applicant for Filipino citizenship.

“x x x since the law
requires proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of
his residence in the Philippines (Section 2, par. 3, Com. Act 473), the evidence
falls far short when only two witnesses are presented who came to know applicant
only in 1945 and 1946 respectively (See Di Tiam v. Republic, L 10200, April 18, 1958), and who were,
therefore in no position to testify as to applicant’s conduct from the time he
arrived in the Philippines on October 2, 1921. Needless to say, it takes much
more than the uncorroborated assertions of applicant himself to establish this
vital fact. x x x ” (Chua Pun vs. Republic, L-16825, December 22, 1961)

Another flaw that we may mention is the lack of sufficient proof to show that
petitioner has a lucrative occupation within the meaning of the law. Indeed, the
record shows that petitioner has a wife and five children to support who are all
minors and of school ape, except young Celso. They
are, therefore, all dependant upon petitioner who cannot in any manner help him
in improving his financial position. Yet, his income in 1958 only amounted to
P4,659.88;.in 1959 P6,971.27, and in 1960 P7,799.34,
which certainly cannot be considered enough to give him a lucrative occupation
in contemplation of law. In fact, we have already held that income of P5,980.00
where applicant had a wife and three children (Koa Gui
vs. Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962); P6,300.00, where applicant had a wife and
one child (Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963); P7,133.29 where petitioner
had a wife and four children (Go Bon The v. Republic, L-16813, December 27,
1963); and P8,687.50, where applicant had to support a wife and five children
(Keng Giok v. Republic,
L-13347, August 31, 1961), were insufficient to meet the requirement considering
the high cost of living and the law value of our currency. We are not now in a
position to adopt a ruling that may set at naught the precedents we have
heretofore set forth on the matter.

It further appears that the four children of petitioner who are of school age
are now studying at the Dumaguete Chinese School
which, though recognized by our government, is however a place where most of the
students are Chinese or foreigners, with Filipinos forming the minority. This is
another circumstance which argues against the alleged sincere desire of
petitioner to embrace our customs and traditions, as well as to mingle socially
with the Filipinos, for he could have enrolled his children in a school owned or
run by Filipino citizens. As we already said: “Philippine citizenship is a
privilege that should not easily given away. It should be accorded only to one
who evinces a true and sincere desire to embrace such citizenship. Petitioner falls short of this requirement” (Tochip v. Republic, L-19637, February 26, 1965).

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby
reversed. Costs against appellee.

Bengzon, C, J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,  Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.