IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG SIAO LIONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, ONG SIAO LIONG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPE…

Appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, in Naturalization Case No. 48376, granting the
petition for naturalization of Ong Siao Liong.

On August 17, 1961, Ong
Siao Liong filed with the
Court of First Instance of Manila, a petition for naturalization,
alleging:  that he was born on the 26th
day of May, 1936, in Kulangsu, China; that he
emigrated to the Philippines from Amoy, China, on or about the 9th day of February 1939, and arrived at the port of
Manila, Philippines, on board the vessel “Tjinegara“;
that he has resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of over 20
years, and in the City of Manila for a period of at least one year, immediately preceding the date of his
petition, and that his present, place of residence is No. 921, now 1171,
Magdalena Street, City of Manila, and his former places of residence were at Nueva Street, T. Pinpin Street, and 631
Zacateros Street, Manila; that he is single; that his trade or
profession is that of an employee, in which he has been
engaged since 1957, and from which he derives an average annual income of
P3,600.00; that he does not own any real estate; that he is able to speak and
write English and Tagalog; that he has filed his
declaration of intention on March 2, 1960; that he believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, he has conducted himself in a proper
and irreparable manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the
community in which he lives, has mingled socially with the Filipinos, and has
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipinos; that he has all the qualifications required under
Section 2, and none or the
disqualifications under Section 4, or Commonwealth Act No. 473; that he is not
opposed to organized govern­ment, nor is he affiliated with any association or
group of persons that uphold and teach doctrines op­posing all organized
governments, nor is he defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of
violence, personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of men’s
ideas; that he is not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy;
that he has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude, nor is he suffering from any incurable con­tagious
disease; that the nation of which he is a citizen or subject is not at war with
the Philippines; that it is his intention in good faith to become a citizen of
the Philippines, and to renounce absolutely and forever ail allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or
sovereignty, and, particularly, to the Republic of China; that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of
his petition until the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship; and
that he has not made any application for citizenship in any court.  The petition was accompanied by two amended affidavits
executed by Mauro N. Castro and Vicente Merced, and another affidavit
executed by Ignacio Semeniano, all of whom uniformly declared that they have always known the petitioner to be a
man of honor and good reputation; that they have known him for more than ten
years, and that during the period of their acquaintance with him they have
observed him conduct himself in an irreproachable manner in his relation to the
constituted authorities, to the community where he lived, and to his acquaintances and friends;
and that the petitioner has, in their opinion, all the qualifications necessary
to become a citizen of the Philippines, and not in any way disqua­lified
under the law.

The petition was duly published as
required by law.  The Solicitor General
filed an opposition to the petition, based on various grounds.

After
due hearing, the Court of First Instance of Manila, on February 3, 1964,
rendered a decision granting the petition, and ordering that the
corresponding certificate or naturalization be issued in favor of
petitioner Ong Siao Liong upon compliance by him of the requirements provided
in Republic Act No. 530.

In due time the Solicitor General
appealed from the decision of the lower court.

In his appeal before this Court, the
Solicitor General contends that the lower court erred:  (1) in finding that the petitioner has a
lucrative income or occupation; (2) in not finding that the character witnesses
of the petitioner are not credible persons within the meaning of the law; (3)
in finding that the petitioner is of good moral character; and, as a
corollary to these contentions, (4) in granting the petition for
naturalization.

1.       Petitioner in his
effort to prove that he has a lucrative income, sufficient to meet the
requirements for naturalization, introduced in evidence his income tax returns
for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, showing that he had the following
income:

The record shows that during the hearing of the petition petitioner tried to prove that his income was
higher than what he had previously
stated in his petition,^[1]
by declaring that his income was P480.00
a month.^[2]
We find, however, that petitioner’s claim is belied by his own evidence
consisting of his personal income tax returns for the years 1959, 1960, 1961
and 1962^[3]
and the verified certificate issued by his employer, Leheon
Textile Co., dated June 18, 1962, where­in the amounts stated as the earnings
of petitioner do not tally with his claim during the hearing of the case.  We noted that petitioner himself contradicted
the statement in the certificate issued by Leheon
Textile Co., when he declared on cross-examination that he started to work with
Leheon Textile Company in February 1963^[4]
whereas in the certificate, dated June 18, 1962, it is stated that as of that date he was employed in that textile company at a
salary of P400.00 a month.^[5]
These discrepancies in the
testimony of petitioner and his documentary evidence cannot but give the
impression that petitioner was not telling the truth regarding his income, and
do not speak well of him who is supposed
to be a person of good moral character and irreproachable conduct.

We find that in
the year 1960, petitioner reported in his income tax return an annual income of
P800.00 only, while in the subsequent year, 1961, his income abruptly increased
to P3,450.00, or an increase of more than 300%. 
This is another circumstance that gives the impression that the reported
income was deli­berately “intended to cure the deficiency for purposes of naturalization.”^[6] The income to be reckoned with in determining
whether the applicant for naturalization has a lucrative income is that “as of the time or the
filing of the application”^[7], and granting that petitioner’s average annual income as of the time he filed his
petition was P3,600.00, the same cannot be considered
lucrative.  This Court has already held
that:  “an income or P350.00 a
month these days is not to be considered lucrative considering the
high cost of
living not only in the cities but in the province as well.”^[8] And so an annual income of P3,600.00, which means P300.00 monthly, cannot be considered
lucrative for the purposes or qualifying for naturalization.

2.       Regarding the second
error assigned, the Solicitor General urges that the character witnesses of the
petitioner are not credible as contemplated in the Naturalization Law.  The Naturalization Law requires that the
petition for naturalization must be supported by the testimonies of credible
persons, and so there is no presumption in favor of the credibility of
witnesses:  The credibility of witnesses
must be shown as a fact.

Under the Naturalization Law,
a credible person is not simply an individual who has
not been previously convicted or a crime, or not a police character, or has no police
record, or who has not perjured in the past, or whose sworn statement or
testimony is not incredible.  What must
be credible, is not necessarily the declaration made, but the person making
it.  This implies that such person has a
good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that
he is reputed to be trustworthy
and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value as a good warranty of the worthiness of the
petitioner.^[9] It is not shown in the record that the
character witnesses or the
petitioner are persons of good standing in the community, and that they are
honest and upright, or are reputed to be trustworthy and reliable.  Moreover, We have
noted that the acquaintance of the witnesses with the petitioner is limited,
such that their testimonies would not serve to satisfactorily establish that
petitioner has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines. 
Witness Vicente de la Merced, among other things, testified that during
a period of six years he saw the petitioner “May be five or six or eight
times.”^[10] Likewise, the other witness, Ignacio Semeniano, testified, on direct examination, that he came
to know the petitioner in 1948 in Tabora street, Manila.  But, on cross-examination, this witness
admitted that from Grade I to Grade VI he studied in Masbate, and that he finished his grade VI in
1951.^[11]
It appears doubtful that in the year 1948 this witness was in Manila
and had then associated with the petitioner.  Granting that the witness actually knew
petitioner since 1948, it could be that their meetings occurred only during
school vacation from the year 1948 to 1951, because the witness admitted that
he studied his grades I to VI in Masbate, and he
finished his grade VI in 1951.  The
meetings of petitioner and witness Semeniano, it ever
there had been, were only occasional. 
Such occasional meetings are not sufficient to enable him to observe
closely petitioners behavior so as to be competent to testify regarding his
good moral character and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of
petitioner’s residence in the Philip­pines.^[12]

3. The Solicitor General also contends that the evidence to
establish that petitioner is of good moral character was not sufficient.  Witness Ignacio Semeniano
failed to show, by his testimony, that petitioner is of good moral character, because he simply declared that petitioner has not entered illegitimate transaction and has not been put in jail.   This character witness did nor state specific facts and events from
which it may be inferred that petitioner has conducted himself
in a
proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.  It
takes more than the uncorroborated
testimony of the petitioner to establish the fact of his good moral
character and irreproachable conduct.^[13] We find that the two witnesses of petitioner fall short of
being considered credible witnesses and of being competent to testify on the moral character
and conduct of petitioner, considering-the limited nature of their acquaintance
and
association with petitioner.  It can safely be
said that the association of these witnesses with petitioner was not so intimate as to enable them to observe closely and know
the character, the beliefs, the social
contacts, and the associations of petitioner. ^[14]

4.       We have noted that the petitioner failed to
mention in his petition all his places of residence.  In his petition he states that his present
place of residence is No. 921, now 1171, Magdalena St., City of Manila; and
that his former places of residence were
at Nueva Street (without number), T. Pinpin Street (without number), and 631 Sacateros
Street, Manila.  Simply stating the name
of the street without giving the number is not a proper indication of a place of residence, considering that the streets
are in the City of Manila.  We also noted that on being cross-examined by counsel for the State, at
the hearing, petitioner revealed that during the last war, he stayed in San Pablo City for about one half year.^[15] Yet,
he did not state his petition
that for sometime he stayed in San Pablo City.

We find merit in
the appeal of the State.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the
petition for naturalization of petitioner Ong Siao Liong is dismissed.  Costs against said
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annual income of P3,600.00 (or P300.00 monthly) as
stated in his petition which was filed in 1961. 
The hearing took place in 1963.

^[2]
Page 29, t.s.n. Baria.

^[3]
Exhibits G, G-1, G-2 and G-3.

^[4]
Pages 28-29, t.s.n. Baria.

^[5]
Exhibit F.

^[6]
Tan Sen vs.
Republic, L-23181, October 24, 1967.  The
petition for naturalization was filed in August, 1961.

^[7]
Choa Ek Yong vs. Republic, L-21738, March 1, 1968; Ty Eng Hua vs. Republic, 196B Phild.
538.

^[8]
Dy vs. Republic, L-20709, April
29, 1966.  The decision in this case did not state
applicant’s civil status, however, upon verification
of the record of the case the petition stated that applicant was
“single”.

^[9]
Ong vs. Republic, 103,
Phil. 964.

^[10]
Page 40, t.s.n., Vicaldo.

^[11]
Pages 6, 18, t.s.n., Vicaldo.

^[12]
Seng vs.
Republic, G. R. No.L-23936, September 13, 1967; To vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-20156, December
29, 1967.

^[13]
Chua Pun vs. Republic, L-16825, December 22, 1961.

^[14]
To vs. Republic, supra.

^[15]
Pages 17-18, t.s.n., Baria.