G.R. No. L-22315. May 31, 1971
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LUCIO LIM YEO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, LUCIO LIM YEO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPEL…
DIZON, J.:
On May 16, 1960,
petitioner filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance
of Zamboanga, to which were attached the affidavits
of his character witnesses, Leon Uro and Marciano Montojo.
On June 14, 1961,
the Republic of the Philippines
opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner had no lucrative employment.
On September 27, 1962, after hearing the parties, the trial court
rendered the appealed decision declaring Lucio Lim Yeo “eligible for naturalization as a citizen of the
Republic of the
Philippines” and granting his application, with the understanding,
however, that pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, the decision
shall not become final and executory until after the
lapse of two years from its
promulgation.
The Republic of the Philippines
appealed.
The Solicitor General agrees that the evidence presented by
petitioner shows that:
“x x x he
is a citizen of the Republic of China (p. 10, t.s.n.,
Directo; Exh.
“S”); he is single (pp. 3, 11, t.s.n., Directo); he was born in Naga-Naga
(now Alicia), Zamboanga del Sur
on October 17, 1939 (p.
10, t.s.n., Directo; p. 22,
t.s.n., Cabato; Exh. “G”); he has resided in the Philippines
continuously since birth (p. 11, t.s.n., Directo).
Since April, 1960, he is employed as General Clerk of the State
Glass Supply located at 681 Sto. Cristo Street, Manila,
where he receives a yearly salary of P3,000.00
effective January, 1962. In 1961, he
received an annual salary of P2,400.00 only (Exh. “A”; pp. 5-7, 30, t.s.n., Directo; pp. 9-10, 60-61,
t.s.n., Cabato). Before 1961, he was given only a monthly
salary of P150.00 (pp. 4-5 t.s.n., Directo).
He also has a part-time job at the Jabo
Trading where he receives P2,600.00 annually as his
commission as casual salesman (Exh, “B”;
pp. 8, 33, t.s.n., Directo;
pp. 27-28, 51, 61, t.s.n., Cabato).
He filed his income tax returns for the years 1960 and 1961 (Exh. “C”, pp. 10, 37, t.s.n., Directo; p. 27, t.s.n.,
Cabato). He has paid the
corresponding tax thereon (pp. 37-38,
t.s.n., Directo, Exhs. “C-1”, “V”).
He has filed a statement of assets and liabilities in 1961 (Exh. “D”).
He resides in Manila
(p. 5, t.s.n., Directo; Exhs. “C”, “V”, &
“W”).
He is registered as an
alien with the Bureau of Immigration (Exh. “T”, p. 28, t.s.n., Directo).
He finished his primary grades at the Zamboanga
Chinese High School, his intermediate grades at the Isabela
Chinese School and the Zamboanga Chinese High School,
and his secondary course also at the Zamboanga
Chinese High School, (pp. 23-24, t.s.n., Directo; Exh. “Z”;
pp. 25-26, 91, t.s.n., Cabato). He claims that said schools are recognized by
the Government and teach English, Philippine History, Civics and Government
(p. 91, t.s.n., Directo),
but he did not present any documentary evidence to that effect. At present, he is a fourth year student of
engineering in the Mapua Institute of Technology (pp.
26, 53, t.s.n., Cabato; pp.
24, 38-39, t.s.n., Directo).
He can speak and write Chavacano and the
English language (pp. 12-14, t.s.n., Directo; pp. 7-9, 62-64, t.s.n., Cabato; Exh. “E”).
He believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution (pp. 15-16, 42-45, t.s.n., Directo); has mingled socially with the Filipinos; has
embraced Filipino customs, ideals and traditions; and has conducted himself in
a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period of residence in the
Philippines (pp. 13, 29-38, 61-71, 96-99, t.s.n., Cabato; pp. 16-21, t.s.n., Directo).
He alleged that he is not opposed to organized government; that he is not affiliated with any
subversive group which upholds and teaches doctrines opposed to organized
government (pp. 20-21, t.s.n., id.); that he has not
been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude (p. 21, t.s.n., id.; Exh. “J”,
“L” to “W”).
Marciano R. Montojo,
a character witness, testified that he is a bookkeeper and a resident of Zamboanga City (p. 3,
t.s.n., Cabato); that he
has known petitioner since 1941 (p. 4, t.s.n., id.);
and has attached himself to the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution
(pp. 6-7, t.s.n., id.); that the petitioner conversed
with him in Chavacano and in the English language (pp.
8-9, t.s.n., id.); that he mixes with Filipinos whose
customs and traditions he is desirous to learn (pp. 13, 31-38 t.s.n., id.); and that he has signed the affidavit (Exh. “X”) (pp. 17-18, t.s.n.,
id.).
Leon Uro, 68 years old, married, proprietor,
and resident of Baliwasan, Zamboanga City
(p. 57, t.s.n., id.), declared as the second
character witness. He testified that he
came to know petitioner since the
latter was a small boy (pp. 58-59, t.s.n.,
id.); that he thinks petitioner is now working in Manila (pp. 59-60, t.s.n., id.), that petitioner speaks and writes Chavacano and English (pp. 62-64, t.s.n.,
id.); that he is of good moral character (p. 67, t.s.n.,
id.); that petitioner cooperated in community activities such as July 4
parades and contributes to the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (pp. 68-69, t.s.n.,
id.); that petitioner attends fiestas and dances (pp. 69-70, t.s.n., id.); that he is not a member of the Communist
party (p. 72, t.s.n., id.); that he came to know
petitioner through his father when they lived in the same house during the
early days of the Japanese Occupation (p. 94, t.s.n.,
id.); that petitioner is qualified to become a Filipino citizen (p. 75, t.s.n., id.).”
In spite of the facts established by petitioner’s evidence, as
above summarized, the Solicitor General contends that the appealed decision
should be reversed because the trial court committed the following errors:
“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION TO TRY AND IN
ACTUALLY TRYING THE CASE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT (a) PETITIONER HAS NOT RESIDED IN ZAMBOANGA AT LEAST ONE YEAR
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND (b) THE PETITION AND
NOTICE OF HEARING WERE NOT PUBLISHED FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER
OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAS A LUCRATIVE
EMPLOYMENT OR OCCUPATION.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES
WERE NOT CREDIBLE PERSONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PRESENT PETITION FOR
NATURALIZATION.”
We find the first assignment of error to be without merit.
It is a fact that appellee was born on October 17, 1939 and grew up in Naga-Naga (now Alicia), Zamboanga
del Sur. While it is true that from 1957 to 1961 he
lived in Manila, it is nonetheless
true that his stay in said city was merely temporary and was due to the fact
that he spent those four years studying Chemical Engineering at the Mapua Institute of
Technology. Such temporary stay in the
City of Manila for that particular purpose did not imply
that appellee had abandoned his residence in the municipality
of his birth.
As regards the State’s contention that the petition and notice
of hearing were not published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation, We find that according to Exh. “I”, the same were published consecutively on May 21 and 28 and June 4, of 1960,
in the local newspaper “EL SUR”, which was of general circulation in
the City of Zamboanga and other parts of Mindanao. Moreover, the certificate
issued by the Bureau of Printing (Exh.
“H”) shows that the petition was also published in three consecutive
issues of the Official Gazette.
Anent the question of whether or not appellee
had a lucrative employment (second assignment of error), the latter’s evidence
shows that he was at first an employee of the State Glass Supply at a monthly
salary of P150.00; that in 1962 his total income went up to P5,600.00 because his yearly salary at the State Glass Supply
had been increased to P3,000.00, and besides, he earned around P2,600.00 a year
doing a salesman’s work for Jaba Trading.
The Solicitor General argues that this unusual increase in appellee’s income is highly suspicious and that it is not
improbable that he and his employers had resorted to fictitious or deceptive
arrangements to show that he had a lucrative employment. While We agree with the Solicitor General
that these fictitious or deceptive arrangements are a possibility, still
We cannot definitely say that it is a fact in the instant case because, at the
time appellee claims he had such yearly income, he
was already in the senior year of Chemical Engineering in the Mapua
Institute of Technology and it is at least probable that, due to his training
and qualifications, his yearly salary as General Clerk of the State Glass
Supply located at 681 Sto. Cristo,
Manila had been increased to P3,000.00, and that during his spare time he earned annual
commissions amounting to P2,600.00 as a casual salesman of Jaba
Trading also of the City of Manila
(See Exhs. “A” &
“B”). Moreover, the
trial court found in this connection that “this income of the petitioner
for 1961 had been declared by him in his income tax returns (Exh. “C”) and in his statement
of assets and liabilities (Exh.
“D”).
In relation to the third assignment of error,
the Solicitor General says the following in his brief:
“Petitioner left Zamboanga
City for Manila
in 1957 (Annex “A”). Since
that year up to the time of the hearing in 1962, he has always been in Manila
by reason of his employment and
studies at the Mapua Institute of Technology.
His witnesses Leon Uro and Marciano Montojo, both of whom
are residents of Zamboanga
City, never had contacts with
petitioner in Manila. They therefore cannot be said to have the
opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of petitioner, much less can they be said to have such a close
personal association with him as to consider themselves to be intimates (Chong Pong v. Republic, L-9153, May 17, 1957; Dy Suat v. Republic, G.R. No.
L-9224, May 29, 1957).”
We are inclined to agree with the Solicitor General. It seems obvious that, for a period of four
years (1957-61), appellee’s character witnesses –
both of whom resided in Zamboanga
City during that period of time –
did not have sufficient contact with him because he spent that period of time
in Manila. That for this reason they had no reasonable
opportunity to observe his conduct during that period is quite easy to
see. On the other hand, appellee presented no witness to testify regarding his
conduct while studying in Manila –
which was for quite a long period of time.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from
is reversed and set aside on the sole ground that appellee’s
character witnesses were not qualified to say – and their testimony did not
prove – that during all the period of his residence in the Philippines
he had observed good and irreproachable conduct. With costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Ruiz Castro, J., took no part.
Barredo, J., concurs but reserves his opinion as to the matter of lucrative income.
Makasiar, J., concurs except re income.