IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  TAN CHUA @ CARLOS CUA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated October 29, 1963, denying the appellant
Tan Chua‘s petition for
naturalization.

Tan Chua alias Carlos Cua,
on December 4, 1959, filed
a petition for naturalization with
the CFI of Manila (CC 42059).  On October
15, 1960, after due hearing, the court rendered judgment, declaring that he
possesses all the qualifications required by law, and none of the
disqualifications, to become a Filipino citizen, and, consequently granted the
petition.

On September 19, 1962
the petitioner filed a motion to set his case for final hearing.  On June 10 1963 the Solicitor General filed
an opposition seeking dismissal of the petition on the grounds that (1) the
court has no jurisdiction over the case as the petition omitted to mention the
previous addresses of the petitioner, in violation of section 7 of Commonwealth
Act 473, as amended; and (2) that the petitioner has not conducted himself in a
proper and irreproachable manner during his residence in the Philippines, as he
had assumed and used an alias, Carlos Cua,
without judicial authority.  The court,
in its subsequent order of October 29, 1963, denied the petition, upon the
grounds relied upon by the Solicitor General, and upon the additional grounds
that (1) the petitioner “committed numerous errors both in the writing of
English sentences and in Tagalog translation”; and
(2) he operated a travel agency from 1956 to January, 1958 without authority to
do so, in violation of section 6 of Republic Act 1478 as amended by Republic
Act 2627.  His motion for reconsideration
of the order of dismissal was also denied.

The vital issue posed in this appeal is whether the court a
quo erred in denying the petition for naturalization.

The rule is well-settled that a court, at the hearing on a motion
to take oath, is not limited to inquiring whether a petitioner for
naturalization (1) has left the Philippines for abroad; (2) has dedicated himself
continuously to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of
any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules; and (4) has not
committed any act prejudicial to the interests of the nation or contrary to any
Government announced policies (sec. 1, R.A. 530).  Upon the contrary, it may inquire into “any question affecting the qualifications of the
applicant” (Lim Hok Albano,
etc. vs. Republic, L-10912, Oct. 31, 1958, and the cases therein cited; Ong Ching Guan vs. Republic
L-15691, March 27, 1961).  Indeed, it is
likewise settled that the Government is not estopped
to question a petitioner’s qualifications even after his petition for
naturalization has been granted, for unlike final decisions in actions and
other court proceedings, a decision or order granting citizenship to an
applicant does not really become executory, and, a
naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the
decision therein is not res judicata as to any matter which would support a
judgment canceling the certificate of naturalization (Republic vs. Go Bon Lee,
L-11499, April 29, 1961).

The record shows that the appellant stated in his petition for
naturalization only his last place of residence – 757 Ongpin
St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, but failed to state his former places of residence,
namely, Ilaya St., Tondo,
Manila, 1936-1937; Sto. Cristo
St., Binondo, Manila, 1937-1945; Clavel
St., Binondo, Manila, 1945-1948; 51 Soler St. Sta. Cruz, Manila, 1948-1954; 843 San Fernando
St., Manila, 6 Oriente St., Binondo,
Manila, 1954-1955; and 534 Ongpin St., Binondo, Manila.  His
failure to state his previous places of residence in his petition for
naturalization is in violation of section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473, a fatal
defect that warrants the dismissal of his petition (Yap vs. Republic, L-19832,
August 23, 1966, and the cases therein cited). 
Such omission moreover amounts to “falsifying the truth, indicating
lack of good moral character which disqualifies him from admission to
Philippine citizenship” (Ong Tai vs. Republic,
L-19418, December 23, 1964).  The fact
that at the hearing held on September 26, 1960, in his application for
clearances to the different investigative agencies before his original petition
was heard, and to the same agencies before his petition to take his oath of
allegiance was heard, he stated his said former addresses, did not thereby cure
this defect (Lo vs. Republic, L-15919, May
19,1961; Qua vs. Republic,
L-19834, October 27, 1964; Kao Heng etc. vs.
Republic, L-21079, February 28,1966; Yap vs. Re­public, supra.)

The record likewise shows that the appellant used the alias
“Carlos Cua” without judicial authority, in
violation of section 1 of
Commonwealth Act 142, which provides that “Except as a pseudonym for literary purposes, no person shall use any name different
from the one with which he was christened or by which he has been known since
childhood, or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent
court,” as well as section 2 of the same Act which requires a person
“desiring to use an alias or aliases” “to obtain judicial authority”
therefor.  The
use of said alias without judicial authority
“hardly speaks well of his
(petitioner’s) character
or his fitness to become a Fili­pino citizen” (Cosme
Go Tian Ana @ Ana vs. Republic, L-19833, August 31, 1966), indicates that he has not
conducted himself properly, and disqualifies him to acquire Philippine
citizenship (Lim Bun vs. Republic, L-12822, April 26, 1961).

ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from is affirmed, at petitioner-appellant’s
cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and
Sanchez, JJ., concur.