NANIKRAM SEHWANI (NANKI HIRANAND), PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

The Solicitor General, after
hearing, filed an opposition alleging: (1) petitioner has not proved his
exemption from fifing a declaration of intention; (2) his character witnesses
were not shown to be credible persons within the meaning of the law; (3) their
testimony is insufficient to show petitioner’s continued residence in the
Philippines for the period required by law, nor his good repute and moral
irreproachability; and (4) petitioner is a tax evader showing that he is not
morally irreproachable. On December 24, 1960, the court a quo rendered decision
denying the petition for naturalization.

Petitioner assigns now the
following errors supposedly committed by the court a quo: (1) in holding that
petitioner did not sufficiently prove that he has conducted himself in a proper
and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines; (2) in finding that petitioner does not have a lucrative
profession, trade, or occupation; and (3) in concluding that there is no
evidence that petitioner ‘a witnesses are credible persons.

Petitioner was born on March
3, 1936 in
Silay, Negros Occidental and is married to Rajni N. Hiranand. The couple has no
children. He is a citizen of India and has resided continuously in
the Philippines since his birth up to the present
time. He studied at the Saint Paul College, Manila up to grade three, and finished
his elementary and high school course at the San Beda College. He took a
commercial course at the same college. He speaks and writes English and
Tagalog. He believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution;
mingled with the Filipinos; evinced a desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipinos; is not opposed to organized government;
is not affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposed to organized government; is not defending or teaching the
necessity or use of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success
or predominance of his ideas; is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice
of polygamy; has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude,
and is not suffering from any incurable or contagious diseases. He is a
merchant engaged in wholesale and general merchandise business from which he
derived a net income of P4,585.33 in 1956; P4,213.15
in 1957 and P1,746.51 in 1959.

1.      There is no merit in
this error, for what the court a quo pointed out is that the testimony of the
two witness presented by petitioner does not sufficiently prove that he has
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his residence m the Philippines, which is not entirely groundless,
for it really appears that Rodolfo Gonzales, one of the two witnesses, stated “that
before 1948 he did not have any knowledge about his behavior and conduct, while
David Abella, the second witness, testified that he did not likewise know
anything about such conduct or behavior prior to May 1949, contrary to what
our law provides that one who desires to be a Filipino citizen must prove that
he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his
entire residence in the Philippines in his relation to the constituted
government as well as in the community in which he lives in (Commonwealth Act
No. 473, Section 2, paragraph 3). While the two witnesses averred that they can
vouch of their own personal knowledge for the good reputation and moral
character of petitioner during the period of ten years that they had known him,
such testimony is not sufficient, though it may meet the requirement of Section
2 of the same Act, as regards the period of residence required of him before he
could file his petition for naturalization. The failure of the petitioner to
prove that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence is a flaw that disqualifies him from
becoming a Filipino citizen.

2.      It is not
controverted that for the year 1959 petitioner’s net income was only P1,746.71 although he claims that in other years his income
was more. That income can hardly be said to be an indication that his trade or
occupation is lucrative considering that he has a wife to support and the value
of our peso is low while our cost of living is high. In a long line of
decisions this Court declared that such trade or occupation is not lucrative
within the meaning of the law.^[1] True, petitioner might be a graduate of commerce
who can easily find employment that may net him a greater income, but such claim
is at most speculative. What is important is to determine his present earning
or income and not what he expects to earn in the future.

3.      We also find that
the two character witnesses of petitioner were not proven to be credible
persons as found by the court a quo. The mere fact that they are both members
of the bar does not make them trustworthy for, as this Court has intimated, to
be credible the witness “must have 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” (Ong vs. Republic, 55 O.G. No. 18, p.
3290). This qualification must be proven by sufficient evidence.

To what we have stated as grounds
for denying the petition for naturalization, we may add that, as well expounded
by the Solicitor General in his brief, petitioner is a tax evader and has
failed to state in his petition all his former places of residence as required
by law.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,
Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

^[1] Swee Din Tan vs. Republic,
109, Phil., 287; Tiong vs. Republic, 54 Phil., 54 O.G., No. 3, p.
1025; Uy Tiao Hong vs. Republic, 54 O.G.; No. 3 O.G., No. 3, p. 629; Republic
vs. Yap, L-11187, April 23. 1958; Keng Giok vs. Republic, L-13347, August
31, 1961.