PELEGRINA TAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

The
Court of First Instance of Cebu, in its decision of October 2, 1962
(Nat. Case No. 692), granted the petition of Pelegrina Tan for
naturalization as Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General appealed on
two grounds: (1) that petitioner failed to allege in the petition a
previous place of residence; and (2) that the character witnesses who
testified in her favor are not credible persons.

Applicant is a Chinese citizen, single, born of
Chinese parents in Gebu City on August 10, 1928. Since
then and until the hearing of her application she had
never left the country, and had resided continuously in
Cebu Gity. She finished secondary schooling in St. Theresa
College in Cebu, speaks and writes both the English and
Visayan languages, and professes the Roman Catholic faith.
She was employed as cashier in two corporations, namely,
Go Chan & Co. Inc. and Petrick’s Poultry and Hatchery,
where she was receiving a monthly salary of P400.00.

The
record shows that she has all the qualifications required by law as to
length of residence; as to association with Filipinos and willingness
to embrace the native customs and traditions; as to belief in the
principles underlying the Constitution; as to political convictions and
sympathies; as to state of health, moral character and conduct during
the entire period of her residence in the country; and such other
matters as absence of criminal record, payment of income taxes,
registration as alien with the Bureau of Immigration and compliance
with other applicable laws and regulations. Her uncontradicted
testimony is that her grandfather, Felix Go Chan, was a Filipino
citizen; her three uncles, one of whom is Attorney Esteban Go Chan, are
Filipino citizens; and so are her three brothers, who have acquired
Filipino citizenship by naturalization. On the witness stand, on direct
and cross-examination, she showed familiarity not only with the
fundamental provisions of the Constitution but also with the structure
of the Philippine government, the powers and functions of the different
branches thereof and the names of the persons heading them. She does
not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in the
Naturalization Law.

The Solicitor General says that petitioner failed
to allege in her application that she had a place of
residence other than Cebu City. We do not believe the
omission to be fatal. The point came up in the testimony
of Mrs. Corazon Ceniza, one of the two witnesses mentioned
in the application, to the effect that when the war broke
out petitioner evacuated to Bantayan, also in the province
of Cebu. It must be borne in mind that she was then only
fourteen years of age and had to go where her parents took
her; that the evacuation by its very nature was temporary,
similar to that resorted to by almost everybody at the
time for reasons of personal safety, and was by no means
intended as a change of residence. The transfer could
not conceivably be material for purposes ot any investigation that the State might make in order to check on the
conduct or activities of petitioner at the tender age of
fourteen and during such a short period.

The two character witnesses whose credibility
is questioned by the Solicitor General are Francisco
Balcon and lies. Corazon Ceniza. Balcon’s qualification as a reputable person in the community is not
challenged. He had known petitioner since 1935, when
she was only seven or eight years old. Prior to 1957
he became assistant manager ot the Gebu Autobus Company,
and in that year started to work as part-time employee
and attorney-in-fact in the import department of Go
Chan & Company and Go Chan Hardware. Bias is attributed
by appellant to this witness on the ground that he used
to make purchases of spare parts from Go Chan Hardware
way back in 1952 or 1953; that petitioner, who was then
the store cashier, recommended him to the manager; and
that he was “given a price suitable to the item” he purchased. The recommendation could not necessarily have
made Balcon a biased witness. It is an occurrence common enough in business, and the suitable price referred
to by Balcon did not connote any undue favor he had to
reciprocate. If anything, it simply accounts for the
knowledge acquired by him as to petitioner’s character,
conduct and other personal traits.

The other witness, Mrs. Corazon Ceniza, was the
owner of a dress-shop in Cebu City and for many years
had been a professor of psychology in the University of
San Carlos. The suggestion is made that she was not a
credible witness because she stood as sponsor at petitioner’s baptism and that petitioner used to patronize her
dress-shop. There is nothing in the record to show that
these tenuous circumstances caused her to deviate from the
truth. In themselves of course, taken objectively, they
would not disqualify her as a witness or justify the conclusion that her testimony is unavoidably biased. On the
contrary, they afforded her ample opportunity to know
petitioner intimately and to be able to say whether or not
she really deserved to become naturalized. Her testimony
on the point is quite extensive and attests in considerable detail to petitioner’s qualifications and sincerity
of purpose in seeking Philippine citizenship.

On the whole, we find no error in the decision
appealed from, and the same is therefore affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.