CHUA CHIONG ALIAS JUAN CHUA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan granting the
petition for naturalization filed by Chua Chiong alias Juan Chua.

On May 21, 1958 Chua filed a petition for naturalization in the
lower court, supported by the sworn statements of Oscar W. Littaua and
Pedro C. Manzano.

After publication of the notice of hearing as required by law, the
case was heard in the lower court where Chua presented documentary and
testimonial evidence in support of his petition. The State limited
itself to the presentation of documentary evidence.

According to the evidence, Chua was born in Chinkang, China, on
August 4, 1923, of Chinese parentage, and owes allegiance to
Nationalist China. He emigrated to the Philippines and arrived at the
port of Manila on board the SS Anking on May 8, 1933, from which date
he resided in Aparri, Cagayan, until 1936 when he transferred his
residence to Al-lacapan, of the same province. In 1946 he returned to
Aparri where he had been residing up to the time of the hearing.

The testimony of Chua further shows that at the time of the hearing
and since 1958 he was employed by Martin Tan Bun Giok at a monthly
salary of P300.00; that before 1958 he was an employee of Nicanor Tan
at a similar monthly salary; that he was legally married to Bonifacia
Ignacio in 1950 (Exhibit Y) with whom he was living with their four
children named Jesus Henry, born in 1951, Mercedes, born in 1953,
Renato, born in 1955, and Emerito, born in 1957; that when the petition
for naturalization was filed, no one of his children was of school age,
but at the time of the hearing Jesus Henry and Mercedes were already
enrolled in the Aparri Kete School, duly recognized by the government,
where Philippine government, civics and history were taught as part of
the school curriculum; that he had been issued a certificate of
arrival, Immigrant Certificate of Residence No. 114275 and Alien
Certificate of Registration No. A-137011; that he left the Philippines
twice in 1955 and 1958 to visit with his parents in Hongkong, having
stayed in said place for a month on each trip; that he speaks Ilocano
and Chinese and knows a little of the national language and English;
that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution and has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner in relation to the government and the community in which he
lives; that he had mingled socially with Filipinos and had evinced a
sincere desire to embrace their customs and ideals; that he was not
opposed to organized government and was not affiliated with any
association who upheld or taught doctrines opposed to organized
government; that he does not teach-or defend the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or
predominance of men’s ideas; that he is not polygamous nor did he
believe in the practice of polygamy; that he was not suffering from
mental alienation nor any incurable and contagious disease as shown by
a medical certificate issued in his favor (Exhibit Q); that he had
never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; that he
had filed his income tax returns and his statement of assets and
liabilities required by the Tax Census Law; that he had no tax
delinquency and had not filed any other petition for naturalization
except the one subject of the hearing; that it was his intention to
become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce absolutely and
effectively his allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince or
potentate, particularly the Republic of Nationalist China, if his
petition was granted.

His testimony upon the facts above stated finds corroboration in the documentary evidence presented by him during the hearing.

On the other hand, witness Littaua testified that he was a Filipino
citizen and incumbent Chief of Police of Aparri, which force he had
joined since December 16, 1931; that he came to know Chua in 1933 when
he dropped at the Liong Son hardware store to buy some nails; that he
talked to Chua in Ilocano, but the latter simply stared at him, so when
he reported this to the manager of the store, the latter apologized
saying that Chua had just arrived from China; that since then he had
met petitioner very often and know him to be of good repute and morally
irreproachable, attached to the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution; that Chua was not polygamous nor opposed to organized
government; that he was not affiliated with any organization or
association opposed to organized government; that he did not teach the
necessity of violence, personal assault or assassination for the
success and predominance of men’s ideas; that he was not suffering from
mental alienation or any incurable or contagious disease; that Chua had
no police record and that he mingled socially with Filipinos specially
during the war; that he had evinced a sincere desire to embrace and
adopt the good customs and habits of the Filipinos and, finally, that
he was not a communist or a believer in communism.

The other witness, Pedro G. Manzano, testified to the same effect.

While, at first blush, Chua appears to have proven all the
requirements of the naturalization law for the granting of letters of
citizenship to an alien, a close examination of the record has
convinced us that he fatally failed in some important respects.

Among the qualifications required of an applicant for naturalization
are: (i) He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any
of the Philippine dialects and (2) He must believe in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution.

Chua does not claim that he can speak and write Spanish. With
respect to English, he claims that he knows a little of it. This,
however, is disproved, in the first place, by the testimony of his own
witness Littaua who, on cross-examination, admitted that whenever he
spoke to Chua in English, the latter always answered him in Ilocano;
that Chua never talked to him in English; that the only English words
he apparently understood were “yes” and “No” (transcript pp. 10 &
11).

The record also shows that while the questions propounded to Chua
were asked in simple and understandable English, they had to be
interpreted to him before he gave his answers thereto, this having
prompted the Fiscal to make of record such fact as follows:

“Fiscal de la Cruz:

For purposes of
record, we would like to have it appear that while the questions are
asked in simple English, the witness waits for the interpretation.”
(transcript p. 22)

The foregoing sufficiently shows, in our opinion, that Chua’s
possession of English does not satisfy the provisions of Section 7 of
the Revised Naturalization Law.

With respect to Chua’s claim that he is attached to the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, his own witness, Manzano,
testified that Chua had never read the Philippine Constitution
(transcript p. 20). One can hardly claim to be attached to the
principles embodied in a document with which he does not have even a
reading acquaintance.

But it is Chua’s own testimony that persuades us that, in reality,
he is not conversant with the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution. This is shown by the following excerpts from his
testimony:

It is true that an applicant for citizenship should not be expected
to be a constitutionalist nor to have a mastery of the provisions of
our Constitution, but appellee’s testimony, quoted above, shows that he
does not really understand the principles embodied in said document.

Moreover, when Chua was asked regarding the customs of the Filipinos
that he had embraced, the best “good custom” that he could mention was
the habit of the. Filipinos to invite others to eat when it is time for
eating. This can hardly recommend him for citizenship.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.