G.R. No. L-10235. February 28, 1958
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LIM HAM CHIONG ALIAS SIMEON LIM TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM HAM CHIONG ALIAS SIMEON LIM, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUB…
LABRADOR, J.:
Clementine V. Diez, presiding, admitting petitioner Lim Ham Chiong alias Simeon
Lim for naturalization. The facts found by the trial court, which are fully
supported by the testimonies of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, are
correct and the same are i hereby reproduced:
“Se trata de una solicitud de ciudadania que se vio despues de haberse
publicado la notificacion en la Gaceta Oficial, en los numero correspondientes a
los meses de junio, julio y agosto de 1954 (Vease Exhibito L), y en el periodico
The Republic Daily, editado en la ciudad de Cebu, en sus ediciones
correspondientes a los dias 8, 16 y 23 de junio de 1954 (Vease Exhibito M). Se
han fijado tambien copias de la notificacion en la pizzarra de anuncios de la
escribano delegado al pie del original de la notification obrante en el
expediente. No se presento oposicion a la solicitud, ni el ministerio fiscal ha
presentado pruebas.“El solicitante es soltero de 24 anos de edad, nacido en 8 de octubre de 1913
en esta ciudad de Debu, pero no pudo presentar copias de los records oficiales y
de la iglesia de su nacimiento por haberse quemado durante la pasada guerra.
(Veanse certificados de la Oficina del Registro Civil y del cura parroco de la
Catedral Exhibitos A y A-1); es hi jo legitimo de los esposos Lim Tian Teng,
rauerto en 1945, y Tan Ta, ambos ciudadanos chinos residentes desde hace muchos
años en esta ciudad de Cebu; es ciudadano de la Republica de China bajo Chiang
Kay Sek; estudio y termino la primaria en el Colegio de la Immaculada
Concepcion, de esta ciudad (Vease copia fotostatica Exhibito B-2); la intermedia
en el entonces Colegio de San Carlos de Cebu, hoy Universidad de San Carlos
(Vease copia fotostatica, Exhibito B-2), y estudio y se graduo de ingeniero
mecanico en le misma Universidad (Vease fotografia del diploma, Exhibito B-1);
ambas instituciones docentes estan debidamente reconocidas por el Gobierno;
habla y escribe el ingles y el bisayo cebuano (Veanse Exhibitos I y 1); es
tenedor de “Alien certificate of registration’, cuya copia fotografica es el
Exhibito C, expedido en 2 de diciembre de 1950, y ha pagado anulmente todos los
derechos correspondientes (Vease Exhibito C-1); y del ‘Immigrant Certificate of
Residence’, Exhibito D, expedido en 8 de julio de 1951; ha residido desde que
nacio en esta ciudad de Cebu hasta la fecha; ;solo una vez salio del pais,
cuando a la edad de unos siete años; fue llevado por su madre para una corta
vacacion de unos diez meses en el pueblo natal de sus padres, Chuanchiu, Fokien,
China; durante la guerra estuvo evacuado en Inabanga, Bohol; es empleado como
cajero auxiliar de Lim Tian Teng Sons & Company, Inc., dedicada a
importacion y capitalizada en P500,000, con un sueldo anual de P1,800 de la
misma compania. (Vease certificado Exhibito E) ; no debe por impuestos al
Gobierno (Veanse certificados del agente provincial de Rentas Internas, Exhibito
F, y del tesorero de la ciudad; Exhibito F-1); ha observado buena conducta y
nunca ha sid acusado, ni mucho menos convicto de alguna infraccion de ley,
ordenanza municipal o reglamentos (veanse certificados Exhibito G del escribano
de este Juzgado; Exhibito G-1 del escribano del juzgado municipal de Cebu;
Exhibito G-2 del Ejercito; Exhibito G-3 de la Constabularia; Exhibito G-4 de la
policia de Cebu; G-5 del Fiscal de la Ciudad de Cebu, ni tiene causa pendiente
en la Oficina de Inmigracion (Vease certificado Exhibito G-6); no padece de
ninguna enfermedad mental, contagiosa o incurable (Vease certificado Exhibito J
del oficial de Sanidad de Cebu); se ha conducido siempre de una manera propia
tanto en sus relaciones con las autoridades del Gobierno como con los
particulares; se ha asociado con filipinos y ha abrazado las costumbres,
tradiciones e ideales de los filipinos; cree en los principios de nuestra
constitucion; no se halla opuesto a un gobierno organizado, ni esta afiliado a,
ni simpatiza con ninguna asociacion o agrupacion de personas que sostienen y
enseñan doctrinas opuesta a todo gobierno organizado; no defiende ni enseña la
necesidad o conveniencia del empleo de la fuerza o violencia, de la agresion
personal, o del asesinato para el exito y predominio de sus ideas; no cree en la
poligamia.“El solicitano se halla exento de presentar declaration de proposito para ser
ciudadano filipino por haber nacido y residido en esta cuidad de Cebu
continuamente desde que nacio y haber terminado la intermedia, high school, y la
ingeniera mecanica en colegios reconocidos por el gobierno.“EN SU VIRTUD, el Juzgado declara que el solicitante LIM HAM CHONG alias
SIMEON LIM reune todas las condiciones requeridas por la Ley y ninguna de las
descualificaciones para ser ciudadano filipino, y ordena que despues de
transcurrido el plazo de dos años desde que quedare firme esta decision y de
cumplicados con todos los requisitos previtos en el articulo primero de la Ley
No. 530 de la Republica de Filipinas, se expida a su favor carta de ciudadania
filipina.
“ASI SE ORDENA.”
Not satisfied with the above decision the Republic of the Philippines has
appealed, claiming that one of the character witnesses, namely, Mayor Jose B.
Rodriguez of Cebu, is incompetent to testify on the good moral character of the
petitioner during the entire period of the latter’s stay in the Philippines,
Reason for this claim is the fact that Mayor Rodriguez was absent from the
Philippines for three years, from 1948 to 1951, and during that period of time,
it is claimed that the witness did not and could not have had the opportunity to
observe the conduct and the character of the petitioner, particularly when the
laiter was growing into manhood. Supposed authority for this contention is the
decision of this Court in the case of Karam Singh vs. Republic of the
Philippines! G. R. No. L-7567, September 20, 1955.
The case of Karam Singh vs. Republic, supra, is not applicable to the case at
bar. The reason why the instrumental witness in that case was declared
incompetent was because he came to know the applicant for naturalization only
for about four years before the hearing of the case. In the case at bar, witness
Jose B. Rodriguez had known the petitioner since the latte’s boyhood.
The question, however, which the Solicitor General squarely presents is as
follows: Must a witness for naturalization continuously have had opportunity of
ob- serving applicant during all the years of stay by the latter in the
country, or is it enough that he has been in continuous touch with him
during the period of his stay to be able to testify as to his conduct during the
stay? More specifically, in the case at bar, did the mere fact of absence of the
witness for a period of three years disqualify him as a witness if he had known
the applicant for 20 years or more?
Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, does not require that
witnesses to the character qualification of an applicant for naturalization must
continuously be in the Philippines to observe the applicant’s conduct. It is not
expressly required that a witness continuously see and observe an applicant, in
order to be competent to testify that during the applicant’s period of stay in
the Philippines the latter has acted in an irreproachable manner. Knowledge of
the conduct and character of an applicant is not obtained by observation alone;
the acts of a person ordinarily come to the knowledge of his acquaintances.
Character is, besides, something that develops in the community and is best
evidenced by reputation. If a person observes a conduct that is not proper, or
if he commits acts in violation of the laws or the social rules of the
community, these will come to the knowledge of any individual, especially an
acquaintance, although the latter did not actually see the act committed. For
the jabove reasons, the mere fact that witness Jose B. Rodriguez jhas been
absent from the Philippines for three years does not mean that duct and
character of the applicant during his stay in the country is not true.
Resuming what we have stated above, we hold that witness Jose B. Rodriguez is
a competent witness as to the irreproachable in during the his testimony about
the irreproachable conduct and character of the applicant herein during the
latter’ s entire period of stay in the Philippines, because the witness had
known applicant since boyhood and up to the time of the filing of the
application Tor naturalization. His absence for three years dees not necessarily
imply lack of knowledge on the part of said winless of the eonduet and character
of the applicant during
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with COSTS DE OFICIO.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,
Concepcion, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur