IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, DY BU SIA @ FILADELFO DY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Petitioner-appellee Dy Bu Si, alias Filadelfo a Chinese,
filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Samar, on 10 December
1959. The
petition was published in the “Nueva Era” in its
issues of 18 and 25 January and 1 February 1960 and also in Nos. 47, 48 and 49,
Volume 55, of the Official Gazette (issues of 23, 30 November and 7 December T9
59, respectively).^[1]

After hearing, the lower court,
on 18 May
1961,
granted the petition. Two (2) years thereafter, on motion by the petitioner, and
after reception of evidence, the court ordered, on 21 August 1963, the allowance
of the petitioner’ s oath-taking as a Filipino citizen.

On the same day, 21 August
1963,
oppositor Republic of the
Philippines appealed, thereby opening to
Inquiry petitioner’s qualifications (Cheng alias Lim vs. Republic, L-20013, 30
March 1965; Lim alias Lim Eng Chuan vs. Republic, L-21193, 30 Sept. 1966).

The evidence for the petitioner
shows that he was born on 3 January 1927 in Ching
Kang, China, and came to the Philippines in 1929; that he is married to Dorotea Tan, a Chinese, with whom he has six (6) children;
that for 1959 he had an Income of P4,612.10, as an
employee of Tan Chuan of Catbalogan, Samar, and as a partner in a retail store at Lucena, Quezon.

It is argued for the government
that the petition was not published, as required by law, in that there was no
showing that the “Nueva Era” has general circulation
in the province of Samar. In reply, the petitioner states
that he is not to blame for the publication in the said newspaper because it was
the lower court that ordered the publication and which was not of the
petitioner’s choosing; that the lower court took judicial notice of the general
circulation of the newspaper in the province and is presumed to have duly
complied with its duties when it issued its order to publish the notice in the
“Nueva Era”.

The issue is not who is to blame
for the publication or the application of the presumption of compliance with a
duty but whether the publication requirement of the law was satisfied. Here, it
was not. In Tan Ten Koc vs. Republic, L-18344,
28 February
1964,
this Court ruled:

“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.” (Underscoring supplied)

Furthermore, the naturalization
of herein petitioner is not warranted in law for the following reasons:

(a) The petition itself and the
several documents submitted in evidence by the petitioner, Exhibits “A-1”, “B”,
“B-1”, “B-2”, “F”, “G”, “N”, “N-3”, “N-4” “N-6″, “N-8”, and “N-11”, attest to
the fact that Dy Bu Sia uses
the name “Filadelfo Dy“, not
as a baptismal name, as he presently claims, but as an alias. Such use, without
authority, disqualifies him for naturalization (Tan vs. Republic, L-19580, 30
April 1965; Chiu Bok vs. Republic, L-19111, 22 June
1965).

(b) Petitioner’s income of
P4,612.10 at the time he filed his petition, with a
wife and six (6) children to support, does not satisfy the law that requires
applicants to have a lucrative occupation or calling (Chiu Bok vs. Republic, L-19111, 22 June 1965; Chua Eng Hok vs. Republic, L-20479, 29 October 1965).

(c) The petitioner testified
that, aside from his present residence at Catbalogan,
Samar, he had previously resided or
stayed in Lucena, Quezon,
Gandara and Tarongan,
Samar. However, he failed to state the
aforesaid previous places of residence in his petition. The petition is,
therefore, fatally defective (Cheng vs. Republic, L-20013, 30 March 1965).

FOR THE FOREGOING
REASONS,
the decision granting the petition for naturalization and the order granting
Filipino citizenship and allowing the petitioner to take his oath, dated
21 August
1963, are
hereby reversed and the petition dismissed, with costs against the
petitioner–appellee.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.

Barrera, J., on leave.

^[1] Observing that the notice of the
petition was apparently published prior to the filing of the petition, the lower
court requested an explanation by the Director of Printing. The bureau replied
that at the time the article was received for publication, the O. G. was very
much behind its regular issue so that the official releases of its issues did
not coincide with their publication; thus, the 23 Nov. 1959 issue was released
only on 16 Feb. 1960, the 30 Nov. 1959 issue on 24 Feb. 1960, and the 7 Dec.
1959 issue on 2 March 1960 (Exhibit “B-1”).