IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EULOGIO ONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. EULOGIO ONG, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND A…

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Magno
S. Gatmaitan, presiding, denying the petition for naturalization of Eulogio
Ong.

The grounds upon which the judgment is based are; that petitioner’s witness
Filomeno Barcelon is not sufficiently competent to testify as to the
qualifications of the petitioner because he made contradictory statements as to
the place of petitioner’s residence, and, that the evidence submitted by
petitioner as to his residence shows that he resided in Grace Park, Caloocan,
Rizal instead of Gandara Street, Manila, for which reason the Court of First
Instance of Manila has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of his application for
naturalization.

It is not necessary for us to state the facts proved by petitioner’s
evidences as to the place of his birth, his educational qualifications, his
lawful admission into the Philippines as an alien, etc., because of the result
of the application. We therefore limit ourselves to the issue raised in the
appeal.

It is a fact that when witness Filomeno Barcelon was called to the witness
stand on July 15, 1958 and gave testimony as to the petitioner’s residence, he
declared that petitioner lived in Gandara Street, Manila, up to the year 1956
and thereafter transferred to Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal; that from 1956 he
(petitioner) continued living in Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, until July 15,
1958 (t.s.n., Magtoto, 39, 44-45). However about one month after the hearing he
was again called to the witness stand and on this occasion he was allowed to
explain that the residence of petitioner testified to by him in his previous
testimony, that the petitioner was residing in Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal,
referred to the place of petitioner’s business not his residence, his residence
being at 917 Gandara Street, Manila. He explained this change that at the time
He was being questioned he believed that the question referred to his place of
business not his residence. It is claimed on behalf of petitioner-appellant that
the above is a sufficient explanation of the previous statement of petitioner’s
witness.

We do not find the explanation by the witness to be satisfactory, primarily
because the judge who heard him testify refused to believe his changed
testimony. We note In addition that his residence certificate for 1958 showed
that he was a resident of Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal (Exhibit “F-l” Income Tax
Return). It is also a fact, of which we may take judicial notice, that Chinese
businessmen rarely have residences different from that of their place of
business. If the petitioner had a place of business in Grace Park, Caloocan,
Rizal, it is natural that he should reside there especially if we take into
account that he does not appear to be of such means that he could afford a place
of residence distinct and separate from his place of business.

We have, however, an additional reason or ground for denying his application.
He testified that he has a capital of P5,000.00 invested in a business known as
the Eurasia Trading, the line of business of which is sale of electrical parts
and spare parts for automobiles and diesel engines. That he had such capital is
not proved except by his own testimony. But assuming his statement to be true,
it would seem that petitioner is engaged in a business of retail which is
prohibited to aliens under Republic Act No. 1180. We take judicial notice of the
fact that spare parts of automobiles and other diesel engines are very expensive
and the capital that petitioner has can not permit a wholesale business in such
commodities. In other words we have reasonable grounds to believe that the
business of the petitioner is one prohibited to aliens because it is the retail
trade. This violation would disqualify him for naturalization.

For the foregoing considerations we affirm the decision of the Court below
denying the petition for naturalization.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against
petitioner-appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.