G.R. No. L-29200. May 31, 1971
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHUA BON CHIONG ALIAS ANG BON CHIONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHUA BON CHIONG ALIAS ANG BON CHIONG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS…
MAKASIAR, J.:
After filing on May 9,
1961 with the Office of the Solicitor General his declaration of
intention dated April 26, 1961
(Exh. H, p. 8, rec.), Chua Bon Chiong
alias Ang Bon Chiong, filed
on June 5, 1962 his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance
of Cebu in Cebu City
together with the joint affidavit of his three witnesses, namely, Romeo Viloria, Claro L. Jayme, Pedro T. Tisoy (pp. 1-5,
rec.) as well as the photostat copies of his
Immigrant Certificate of Residence issued on December 24, 1949, Alien
Certificate of Registration issued on January 6, 1951 and certificate of
arrival dated April 25, 1961 (pp. 6,7, 9, rec.). The notice of the petition as well as the date
of hearing of the same were accordingly posted on the bulletin board of the
clerk of court’s office on June 29,
1962 (Exh. A, p. 10, rec.) and published
in the Official Gazette and in the La Prensa, a
“newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Cebu” once a week for three
consecutive weeks as required by law (Exhs. E, E-1,
E-2, E-3, & F, pp. 15-19, rec.). No
formal opposition was filed by the Solicitor General or the City Fiscal of Cebu City, although the latter, in behalf of the Solicitor
General, cross-examined the applicant and his witnesses.
In a decision dated August 30, 1963, the trial court granted the
petition after finding that petitioner was single at the time he filed the
petition and a Chinese citizen duly registered in the Embassy of the Republic
of Nationalist China and the Bureau of Immigration; that he was born on August
14, 1931 in Chingkang, Fookien,
China and arrived in the Philippines on March 13, 1938 (p. 9, rec); that his address at the time of the filing of his
application was Colon-Sudlon St., Cebu
City; that his full name is Chua Bon Chiong alias Ang Bon Chiong, his alias having
been given to him by his father since he was a child; that he finished his
secondary course in the University of San Carlos, Cebu
City and graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
Engineering from the Cebu Institute of Technology, Cebu City; that he speaks and writes English and the Cebu Visayan dialect; that he is
presently employed as a regular sales representative at the Erlanger and Galinger, Inc., Cebu branch, on
commission basis plus bonus since January, 1961, from which he derived an
income of P4,998.68 in 1961 and P9,691.02 in 1962, duly supported by his income
tax returns; that he has no tax liability with the government; “that
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines from 1938”,
he has behaved himself properly; that his moral character is beyond reproach
and he has conducted himself properly in relation to the community in which he
lives as well as with the duly constituted authorities according to witnesses
Romeo Viloria and Claro Jayme; that he is not suffering from any mental alienation
or any communicable or contagious disease nor opposed to organized government,
much less affiliated with groups of persons or associations who uphold and
teach doctrines opposed to organized government; that he has not been convicted
of any crime involving moral turpitude; that he is not a polygamist and he does
not believe in the practice of polygamy nor defend or teach the necessity or
propriety of violence, personal assault or assasination
for the success and predominance of men’s ideas; that he has not been accused
of any crime; that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution and demonstrated his knowledge of the same by reciting some
provisions thereof; and that he mingles socially with the Filipinos and has
embraced Filipino customs and traditions and after twenty-five years of
residence in the Philippines, he has acquired the Filipino way of life and
likes the democratic form of government.
A copy of the aforesaid decision (pp. 43-47, rec.) was received
on September 13, 1963 (see bottom of p. 47, rec.) by the petitioner himself, on
September 14, 1963 by his counsel (p. 49, rec.) and on September 26, 1963 by
the Solicitor General (p. 6, Solicitor General’s Brief), who did not appeal therefrom.
On November 13, 1965,
petitioner filed a motion to set the case for final hearing (p. 1, rec. on
appeal). The lower court set the final
hearing on November 23, 1965
preparatory to oath-taking (pp. 3-4, rec. on appeal; p. 52, rec.) and reset the
hearing to November 26, 1965
(p. 5, rec. on appeal).
On February 10, 1966, after due hearing, the trial court after
finding that the petitioner has complied with the requirements of Republic Act
No. 530, issued an order allowing him to take his oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen after the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Solicitor
General of the copy of the order (pp. 75-77, rec.; pp. 6-8, rec. on appeal). On March
24, 1966, the Solicitor General appealed from said order (pp. 8-9,
rec. on appeal) and the record on appeal was approved by the trial court on January 30, 1968 (p. 15, rec. on
appeal).
The Solicitor General appealed on the ground that: (1) the petition was not published in full;
(2) the character witnesses who testified for the petitioner were not credible
persons; (3) the petitioner had not conducted himself in an irreproachable
manner; (4) the petitioner lacked lucrative income; and (5) the petitioner
failed to submit his permission to renounce Chinese citizenship from the
Minister of Interior of the Republic of China.
This High Tribunal never deviated from its ruling that a
naturalization proceeding is not simply a private contest between the applicant
and the Solicitor General but is a matter impressed with the highest public
interest, involving as it does an inquiry as to when an alien should be allowed
to enjoy the coveted boon of Filipino citizenship. It is for this reason that the burden of
proof is upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the
requirements of the law. The government
can at all stages of the proceeding raise the issue of such non-compliance even
without filing a formal opposition to the petition. For the government, it is never too
late. The appeal from the order of the
lower court authorizing the taking of the oath of allegiance subjects the entire
naturalization proceedings to scrutiny by the Supreme Court to determine
whether the applicant has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications and whether he has complied with the procedural requirements
of the law, even if those matters are not touched in the briefs or pleadings of
the parties. And if the government files
an opposition, it is not duty bound to specify the grounds therefor. If the applicant fails to establish by
affirmative proof his compliance with the legal requirements, the court should
deny his application.[1]
Because petitioner herein failed to demonstrate by positive
evidence his full and complete compliance with the requirements of the law, his
petition for naturalization should have been denied and the decision granting
his petition as well as the order allowing him to take his oath should be
reversed and set aside.
1. The law requires that he should allege specifically each of the
six qualifications for naturalization prescribed under Sec. 2 of Com. Act No.
473 (Sec. 7 of Com. Act No. 473). The
petition does not contain the specific averment that he is of good moral character,
which omission inevitably nullifies his petition.[2]
2. The notice of the petition as posted and as published does not
contain the textual or verbatim restatement of the petition. It is in violation of Sec. 9, Com. Act No.
473, which requirement is jurisdictional.[3]
3. He failed to include in his petition his name Chua Ben Chiong which appears in the record of the Immigration
Bureau according to the certificate of arrival issued on April 25, 1961 upon his own request (p. 9, rec.),
over one year prior to the filling of his petition on June 5, 1962.
He has not explained either in his petition or in the course of his
testimony why his name appears differently in the records of the Immigration
Office. Such failure to include such
pseudonym militates against a decision in his favor.[4]
4. He has been using the alias Ang Bon Chiong without any judicial authority therefor. His claim that he has been using the same
since childhood as it was given to him by his father, cannot be believed;
because the records of the Immigration Bureau as shown in the certificate of
arrival (p. 9, rec.) is Chua Ben Chiong as
heretofore stated. He arrived in the Philippines
on March 13, 1938, when he
was about seven years old as he was born on August 14, 1931. If
his father gave him that alias before 1938, that alias should appear in the
record of the Immigration Bureau as early as 1938. While it is true that his Immigrant
Certificate of Residence dated December 24, 1949 and his Alien Certificate of
Registration dated January 6, 1951 show the said alias (pp. 6-7, rec.), he must
have been sporting that alias only when he was already in his early teens prior
to 1949 in violation of Com. Act No. 142 as he had no judicial authorization therefor, which fact bars him from being naturalized.[5]
5. Even if he were judicially authorized to use the alias Ang Bon Chiong, Com. Act No. 142
requires that such an alias must be used at all times in the execution of any
document with his real name, violation of which is penalized with an
imprisonment of from one month to six months under Secs.
3 and 4 of Com. Act No. 142. The
petitioner herein used only his alias Ang Bon Chiong without his real name Chua Bon Chiong
when he executed and signed his marriage contract on May 9, 1965, and his 1963 and 1964 income tax returns
(p. 180, rec., Exhs. B, F & G, pp. 2, 6, 7, rec.
of Exhs.).
This likewise vitiates his petition for it indicates his non-compliance
with our penal laws during the two year-probationary period from the receipt on
September 26, 1963 by the Solicitor General of the decision of August 30, 1963
and that he has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in
relation with the community in which he lives and with the duly constituted
authorities.
6. His character witnesses in their affidavits affirmed that they
know the petitioner only from 1951 when petitioner was already in Cebu City
to where he transferred in 1947 from Kinogitan, Misamis Oriental where he resided from 1938 to 1947 or from
the age of seven to sixteen. No witness
was offered to testify as to his moral character and conduct while he was
residing for nine years in Kinogitan, Misamis Oriental.
While it is true that a minor below nine is exempt from criminal
liability, he is not exempt therefrom when he is
above nine but below fifteen if he acted with discernment in the commission of
a crime (Art. 12, pars. 2 & 3, Revised Penal Code). No police, P.C., N.B.I. and N.I.C.A.
clearances were submitted in connection with his nine-year residence in Kinogitan, Misamis Oriental from
1938 to 1947. No such P.C., N.B.I. and
N.I.C.A. clearances were even submitted in evidence concerning his moral
character and conduct while residing in Cebu since
1947 (p. 28, rec.; p. 1, rec. of Exhs.). His good moral character therefore has not
been amply established to the satisfaction of this Court.
7. He has not secured the permission of the Chinese Minister of
Interior from the Republic of Nationalist China to allow him to renounce
Chinese citizenship, which is required so that the applicant may not entertain
double allegiance to the prejudice of his country of original citizenship or
to the country of his new nationality, and as an added assurance that he is
sincere in his application for naturalization and that, once naturalized, he
will owe loyalty only to the Philippines.
As early as 1965, this Supreme Tribunal has so decreed in the case of Go
A. Leng vs. Republic.[6]
And We likewise ruled that petitioner must comply with the laws of China
requiring such special permission from its Minister of Interior.[7]
8. Finally, petitioner has not also by clear and convincing
evidence established that he has a stable and lucrative income; because his
income is only from commission and bonuses as sales representative of Erlanger
and Galinger, Inc. which are speculative, if not
nebulous, and therefore inadequate and unstable because of the fluidity of the
market.[8]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated August 30, 1963 and the order of the
trial court dated February 10, 1966
are hereby reversed and set aside. With
costs against petitioner-appellee.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, Makalintal,
Ruiz Castro, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., in the
result.
Fernando, J., concurs except as
to paragraph for which he reserves his vote.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
[1]
Republic vs. Cloribel, et. al., L-27281, June
30, 1970, 33 SCRA 795, 799-800; Republic vs. Santos, L-23919, July 29,
1968, 24 SCRA 314, 317-320; Yong Sai vs.
Republic, L-20483, Sept. 30, 1966; Lim vs. Republic, L-21193, Sept. 30,
1966; Ching Leng vs.
Republic, L-6268, May 10, 1954; Tan Hoi vs. Republic, L-15266, Sept. 30,
1960; Go Kay See vs. Republic, L-17318, Dec. 27, 1962; Ong So vs. Republic, L-20145, June 30, 1965; Pe vs. Republic, L-20375, Jan. 31, 1966; Go Im Ty vs. Republic, 17919,
July 30, 1966; Chua Tiong Seng
vs. Republic, L-21422, Dec. 18, 1967.
[2] Dy vs. Republic, L-21958, Sept. 28, 1970, 35 SCRA 65, 73; Pidelo vs. Republic, L- 7796, Sept. 29, 1955, 97 Phil. 632.
[3] Dy vs. Republic, supra, 65; Luchayco vs. Republic, L-25814, July 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 997, 1000; Ngo vs.
Republic, L-25805, Feb. 27, 1969,
27 SCRA 88, 90-91.
[4] Dy vs. Republic, supra, 35 SCRA 65-70; Uy vs. Republic, 28 SCRA, 754, 756; Yu Lim vs.
Republic, 27 SCRA 804, 806; Te Poot vs. Republic,
27 SCRA 644, 648; Yu Nam vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 733, 734-5; Dy vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 667, 669-670; Yu Seco vs. Republic, 108 Phil. 807, 809.
[5] Dy vs. Republic, supra, 65, 69; Yu Nam vs.
Republic, 16 SCRA 733, 734-5; Dy vs. Republic,
16 SCRA 667, 669-70; Celerino Yu Seco
vs. Republic, 108 Phil. 807-809.
[6]
L-19836, June 21, 1965, 14
SCRA 317.
[7]
Oh Hek How vs. Republic, L-27429, Aug. 27, 1969, 29 SCRA 95.
[8] Tiu Pua Pi vs. Republic,
L-20909, May 24, 1967, 20
SCRA 175.