IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.  TAN SEN ALIAS CAYETANO TAN ALIAS CAYETANO TAN PAO HO ALIAS TAN PAO HU, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIP…

Appeal by the Solicitor
General from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental (Case
No. 109) granting appellee’s petition for
naturalization.  Petitioner-appellee submitted the
case without filing any brief in
reply to that of appellant.

Petitioner is a native of China, born on February 5, 1919 at Lamua, Amoy. 
He arrived in the Philippines
on August 1, 1931 on board the vessel “Ang
Kin”, and since then did not leave the country up to the
time he filed his petition.  He is married to Sy Sen alias Sima, likewise
a Chinese citizen, by whom he has three children, namely, Lilia, Betty and Wayne, the first two being enrolled at
the Misamis Chinese High School and the third at the
Immaculate Concepcion College.  At the time of the hearing petitioner and his
family were residing at Sinacaban,
Misamis Occidental, where he was engaged in
the business of buying and
selling copra.  According to his petition filed August 9, 1961, his average annual net income was more than P4,000.  During the hearing he testified in English
and spoke and wrote a few sentences in the Visayan
dialect.  Two witnesses, Jose Contreras
and Telesforo Simbajon,
vouched for the good moral character of the petitioner.

The Solicitor General submits
that the lower court erred:  (1) in not
finding that the notice and publication requirements of the law were not
complied with; (2) in not finding that petitioner has no lucrative income; and
(3) in not finding that petitioner has not conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner, because of his use of aliases without judicial
authority.

On the first point, the
question is whether the newspaper “Nueva
Era” was of general circulation in the province of Misamis
Occidental.  There is no evidence to this
effect other than the affidavit of the publisher that the “Nueva Era” was of general circulation in the
Philippines.  Such kind of evidence has
been held to be insufficient.  Thus
in the case of Tan Ten Koc vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-18344, February 28, 1964, this Court said:

“The law requires that the newspaper in which the petition for
naturalization is to be published must be of general circulation in the
province where peti­tioner resides. 
While, in
the instant case, there is an affidavit executed by the Editor of the Nueva Era to the effect
that the said newspaper is of general circulation in the Philippines, this statement is not sufficient proof that there has been
compliance with the law.  Positive
evidence must be presented to prove that the Nueva
Era is of general circulation in Samar, and it is
incumbent upon petitioner to present such evidence.

“The purpose of the law in requiring publication of the notice is to inform those officers and the
public in general of the filing of such a petition in order that the public
officers and private citizens supposed to be acquainted with the petitioner may furnish the Solicitor General or the provincial fiscal with such necessary information
and evidence as there may be
against the petitioner (Anti-Chinese League of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Felix,
etc., et al. G. R. No. L-998,
February 20, 1947, 77 Phil. 1012). 
Considering then that the Nueva Era is published in Spanish and not in English or in the dialect of Samar,
which are more commonly
used in petitioner’s province of residence, and that there has been no positive
and direct proof that it is generally circulated in said pro­vince, the publication made
therein nay not be taken as having served the objective of the law.”

On the issue of petitioner’s income, his tax return for 1961
shows a net amount of P3,037.44, derived as his salary
from Ramon Tan Kee Tu &
Co., and as profit from Lim’s Sing Rice Mill in Zamboanga
del Sur.  Suprisingly enough, his income from the same sources in
1962 aggregate aver P10,000.00, aside from a bonus of P1,000.00 – something he
did not receive the previous year.  As
pointed out by the Solicitor General, the sudden increase by more than 100%
over the previous average gives rise to the suspicion that it was
intended to cure the deficiency for purposes of naturalization.

The third point raised by the Solicitor General is even more
fatal to petitioner’s position.  He
admits that he uses three aliases, namely: 
“Cayetano Tan”, “Cayetano Pao Hu”
and “Tan Pao Hu.”
In his marriage certificate (Exh. E) petitioner used the name “Tan Pau
Hu.” The same name appears in the birth
certificates (Exhs. F and F-1) of his children Lilia
and Wayne, while in that of Betty Tan (Exh. F-2), the
name is “Tan
Sen“. 
There is no evidence that petitioner has been judicially authorized to
use the aliases above mentioned.  This is a clear
violation of the Anti-Alias Law (Commonwealth
Act No. 142), which justifies denial of his application for naturalization (Ong Hock Lian vs. Republic,
supra; Wang I Fu vs. Republic, L-15819, September 29, 1962; Koa Gui vs. Republic, supra; Lim Bun vs. Republic, L-17317,
April 26, 1961; and Ng Liam Ken; vs. Republic, L-14146, April 29, 1961).

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the
petition is denied, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.