ALFONSO TIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is a petition for naturalization which the court granted declaring
petitioner entitled to Philippine citizenship. The court, however,
ordered that the decision “shall not be executory until after two (2)
years from its promulgation and the Court, on proper hearing, with the
attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative shall have
been satisfied and so finds that during said intervening time the
applicant (1) has not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself
continuously to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has not been
convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules;
nor (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interests of the nation or
contrary to any Government announced policies.”

The government has appealed.

Petitioner was born in Cebu City on April 15, 1929 and has continuously
resided therein since birth without having gone abroad. He is single
and employed in Uy Matiao and Company, Inc. as copra classifier and
assistant warehouseman with a salary of P120.00 a month. He has been
filing his income tax returns since 1954. He has registered with the
Bureau of Immigration, and has been reporting for registration as alien
every year. He studied in the Little Flower of Jesus Academy for his
elementary course, although he enrolled in the City Central School in
grade six completing the elementary course in said school on NoVember
23, 1946. He took his high school course in the University of the
Visayas during his first year, and in the University of Southern
Philippines for the next three years, completing the high school course
in said university, where he is now enrolled in the college of
commerce. He speaks and writes English and the Visayan dialect. He does
not, however, speak nor write the Chinese language.

He
believes in the principles underlying our constitution. He has never
been charged with nor convicted of any criminal offense. He has paid
all his taxes to the government and has no pending tax liability. He is
not suffering from any contagious disease. He has been associating with
the Filipinos. Although in the direct examination he did not declare
that he does not believe in polygamy, nor is he a polygamist, one of
his witnesses, on cross-examination, stated that petitioner is not
opposed to organized government, nor is he a polygamist. Likewise,
although petitioner did not testify that it was his desire to become a
Filipino citizen, one of his witnesses stated that he really wants to
become a Filipino citizen as shown by his taking ROTC course even if he
is exempt therefrom.

The government contends that the trial
court erred in not finding that petitioner is not entitled to exemption
from filing the declaration of intention required by law because it
nowhere appears in the evidence that he has enrolled in a elementary
school recognized by the government except only in the sixth grade
during which he attended a public school and completed the elementary
course therein. It is claimed that petitioner took his first five years
of elementary education in the Little Flower of Jesus Academy, but
there is no evidence that said school is recognized by the government,
where Philippine government, civics, and history are taught as part of
the curriculum.

It appears, however, that petitioner
completed his elementary education in the City Central Sch6ol under the
Bureau of Public School in Cebu City and was awarded by said bureau an
elementary certificate of graduation stating that he had “completed the
elementary curriculum prescribed for elementary schools of the
Republic of the Philippines.” It is obvious that if petitioner has been
awarded such elementary certificate of graduation, all his first five
years of elementary education at the Little Flower of Jesus Academy
must have been taken in accordance with the prescribed curriculum for
elementary schools in the Philippines as is required in an institution
recognized by the government.

The government also contends
that the two witnesses presented by petitioner are not competent to
testify on his qualifications because their close observation on his
conduct started since 1948 only which is short of the period of
ten years required by law and that even if it covers that period the
same is only confined to his relations with his folks and elders and
not in relation to the people in general. The government is under the
impression that the period of residence we have to reckon with in this
case is that of ten years which is required of those who are not born
in the Philippines, but the period that applies here is not ten years
but five years for the reason that petitioner was born in the
Philippines, as provided for in Section 3 of the Revised Naturalization
Law. Note that said witnesses are Juan Alburo, Dean of the College of
Commerce, University of Southern Philippines, and Eriberto Jueco,
Principal of the High School Department of the same university, and
both have testified that they have come to know petitioner well not
only because he studied in their university but because they used to
visit his family frequently, and insofar as their observation is
concerned his behavior and conduct toward the community has always been
proper and becoming to the extent that he has always evinced a desire
to become a Filipino citizen. In fact, even the solicitor in charge of
this appeal has expressed the opinion that these witnesses “appear to
be legally qualified and competent to testify as to the conduct and
character of petitioner.”

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.