G.R. No. L-21446. April 29, 1966
LEE TIT ALIAS SIA KHUY, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
REGALA, J.:
The
evidence shows the following: The petitioner was born in China on
August 1, 1912, of Chinese parents. As son of a merchant he came to the
country in 1932 and never returned to China. Residing in the
Philippines Since then, he stayed for sometime in Ayungan, Negros
Oriental, but he is now a resident of Cebu City. He is a widower
without children. He speaks and writes English and the Cebu-Visayan
dialect. Since 1947, petitioner has been employed as salesman at the
Lian Sing Trading with a salary of P250 a month with free board and
lodging. He owns a house at Cebu City valued at P5,000 which he rents
out for P200 a month. In 1960 he earned P2,040 and in 1961 his income
was P4,177.80.
The petitioner testified inter alia
that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence here;
that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos; that he evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace Filipino customs, ideals and
traditions; that he is not opposed to organized government; and that he
neither believes in nor practices polygamy.
With this evidence, the lower court, over the opposition interposed by the Government, granted the petition.
The
Solicitor General has appealed, pointing out several errors committed
by the trial court. The petitioner-appellee has not refuted appellant’s
assignment of errors, failing to file a reply brief within the
reglementary period.
The Solicitor General has assails the
credibility of the character witnesses presented by petitioner. Witness
Ramon Diores admitted that the petitioner’s counsel in this case, Atty.
Luis Diores, is his own son. We agree with the Solicitor General that
with such a relationship, Ramon Diores could not have testified with
such independence of mind as is required of character witnesses in
naturalization cases. In a similar case (Albert Ong Ling Chuan vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964), where one of the
witnesses was the lawyer of petitioner’s father, We held that “this
circumstance lends doubt as to the veracity of his testimony, and leads
one to conclude that his declarations are biased and untrustworthy.”
The
appellant has also shown that the said Diores and his co-witness,
Alejandro Borces, came to know the petitioner only in 1947, so that
they could not vouch, as they claim, for petitioner’s goodness of
character and conduct during the entire period of his stay in this
country.[1]
Another
objection raised by the Solicitor General is on the petitioner’s using
an alias “Sia Khuy”. We find this a valid ground for the denial of
petitioner’s application, because it appears that his use of an alias
was never judicially authorized. (See Wang I. Fu vs. Republic,
supra.)
As
also pointed out, petitioner has shown that he lacks the honesty or
sincerity required of an applicant for Philippine citizenship. In his
income tax returns for 1961, it appears that he had a wife and thus
obtained an exemption in the amount of P3,000. But in his testimony, it
appears that his Chinese wife has been unheard of since the second
world war and he presumes her to be dead. This apparent contradiction
does not speak well of petitioner. He actually falsified his income tax
returns for 1961 so as to gain exemption of P3,000.
Speaking
of his wife, in this connection, the fact that petitioner did not take
pains in finding out as to her whereabouts and well-being, further
demonstrates lack of love and affection on his part, something not
characteristic of a Filipino.
We need not go further to
discuss the other errors assigned by the Solicitor General. The above
defects on the part of the petitioner call for the dismissal of his
application for naturalization.
In view hereof, the decision granting the petition is hereby reversed, with costs against the petitioner-appelle.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
[1] See Chua Pun vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-16862, Dec. 22, 1961; Wang I Fu vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-15819, Sept. 29, 1962; Nanikian Sehwani vs. Republic, G. R. L-18219, Dec. 27, 1963; Uy Tian It vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-18248, Dec. 27, 1963, and other cases on the subject.