[WITH RESOLUTION OF June 30, 1961]

Ng Liam Keng versus Republic

The Case

This is the case of Ng Liam Keng versus Republic, a petition for naturalization filed by a Chinese national who sought to become a Filipino citizen. The petitioner, who also used the alias Jose Tangconkong, filed his petition before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, supported by the affidavits of two character witnesses. The case matters to every reviewee because it gathers in one decision the classic statutory yardsticks for naturalization — the language requirement, the alias law, the character witnesses, and the sincerity of the applicant — and it also teaches a procedural lesson, through the Court's resolution on reconsideration, about the difference between a dismissal with prejudice and one without prejudice.

Procedural History

The petition for naturalization was filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. After hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to comply with all the statutory requirements necessary to qualify him to become a Filipino citizen. The trial court rested the dismissal on five grounds: that there was no proof that the laws of China allow Filipinos to become citizens of the Republic of China; that his certificate of arrival was not authentic because it did not show the date and month of his arrival; that he used only his alias name in his income tax returns and residence certificates in violation of the court order authorizing the alias; that he failed to explain discrepancies in the names and birth dates of his children; and that he did not evince a sincere desire to learn and embrace Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals.

The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning six errors. The Supreme Court decided the appeal on April 29, 1961, affirming the dismissal with prejudice. The petitioner then filed a motion for partial reconsideration, praying that he be allowed, if he so desired, to file another application for naturalization in accordance with law. The Supreme Court resolved that motion on June 30, 1961, amending the dispositive portion of its decision.

Facts

Ng Liam Keng, also known as Jose Tangconkong, filed a petition for Philippine citizenship before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. He claimed to have arrived in Manila in 1919, and he presented a certificate of arrival issued by the Bureau of Immigration. He also presented two affidavits of character, one from a lawyer, Narciso Peña, and one from a businessman, Ramon L. Echem.

During the trial, the court dictated a sentence taken from an English magazine for him to translate and write in Tagalog, and he was unable to make the translation or write it as required. He testified in Tagalog although he could have answered directly in English, and the most he showed of his knowledge of English was writing the translation of the sentence "Ako ay may asawa" as "I have a wife." On his alias, an order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dated October 18, 1948 had authorized him to use the name Ng Liam Keng with the alias Jose Tangconkong, yet in his income tax returns for three years and in his residence certificates he used only the alias name. His nine children were listed in the application, the first six carrying the surname Ng and the remaining three the surname Tang, with discrepancies in names and birth dates that were never explained.

On the character witnesses, the record showed that Peña became acquainted with the petitioner because he acted for a brief period as his counsel and had gone to his store occasionally, without pointing to specific dates of personal and social visits, while Echem became acquainted with him apparently only because they had been neighbors for about five years, from 1940 to 1945.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that it was necessary to show that the laws of China allow Filipinos to become citizens of the Republic of China.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the certificate of arrival was not authentic simply because it did not contain the date and the month of arrival in the Philippines.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds of deficient language qualification, violation of the Alias Law, and the failure of the character witnesses to establish sufficient acquaintance with the petitioner.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the petition for naturalization should be with prejudice.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the Alias Law, Commonwealth Act Number 142, which the petitioner violated by failing to use both his real name and his authorized alias as decreed in the court order:

Commonwealth Act No. 142.

The Court cites the Alias Law as the measure against which the petitioner's interchangeable use of either name in his business transactions was tested and found wanting.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The contention is well taken, for the Court has already held that such proof is not necessary, it being sufficient that he submit proof that he is a citizen of Nationalist China.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled in favor of the petitioner. The contention is well taken, considering that the certificate expressly states that he arrived in Manila in 1919 and the same was issued by the Bureau of Immigration.

On the third issue, the Court ruled against the petitioner and affirmed the dismissal. On the language requirement, the Court held that the petitioner showed a deficient knowledge in writing the national language and in speaking and writing the English language, and that he failed to show satisfactorily that he possesses the requisite language qualification. On the alias law, the Court found that he committed a violation of the Alias Law for his failure to use both his real name and his authorized alias as expressly decreed in the order of the court, and that he interchangeably used either name in some of his business transactions, and not jointly as should have been done, thus giving rise to the suspicion that he acted with an improper design. On the character witnesses, the Court held that they had not satisfactorily established that they knew him sufficiently well during the requisite period the law requires, and that they cannot qualify as insurers of his moral character as is required in a petition for naturalization.

On the fourth issue, resolved in the resolution of June 30, 1961, the Court found the grounds of the motion for partial reconsideration valid and meritorious, and amended the dispositive portion of its decision so that the dismissal would be without prejudice.

Doctrine

First, an applicant for naturalization need not prove that the laws of his country allow Filipinos to become citizens of that country; it is sufficient that he submit proof that he is a citizen of Nationalist China. Second, a certificate of arrival issued by the Bureau of Immigration stating the year of arrival is not rendered inauthentic merely because it does not contain the date and the month of arrival. Third, the applicant must possess the requisite language qualification, and a deficient knowledge of the national language and of English, shown by an inability to translate and write a dictated sentence, is fatal to the petition. Fourth, the applicant must comply with the Alias Law, Commonwealth Act Number 142, by using both his real name and his authorized alias jointly, not interchangeably, in his transactions. Fifth, the character witnesses must have known the applicant sufficiently well during the requisite period to be able to act as insurers of his moral character. Sixth, a dismissal of a petition for naturalization may be modified to be without prejudice, so that the applicant may, if he so desires, file another application in accordance with law, provided that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

Disposition

The Republic won: the Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for naturalization, but modified it so that the dismissal is without prejudice, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a dismissal of a naturalization petition may be without prejudice, allowing the applicant to file another application if he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Examiners like to use this case on the language requirement, the Alias Law, the qualifications of character witnesses, and the with prejudice versus without prejudice distinction in naturalization proceedings.