BENJAMIN CO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is a petition for naturalization which, after hearing was granted,
the court ordering that after the lapse of two years from the date the
decision becomes final and all the requisites provided for in Republic
Act No. 503 have been complied with a certificate of naturalization be
issued to petitioner.

Petitioner was born on March 13, 1931
in Bangued, Abra. He is the son of Go Cham and Yu Suan, both Chinese.
He owes his allegiance to the Nationalist Government of China. He is
married to Leonor Go, the marriage having been celebrated in the
Catholic church of Bangued, Abra. He speaks and writes English as well
as the Ilocano and Tagalog dialects. He graduated from the Abra Valley
College, and finished his primary studies in the “Colegio” in Bangued,
Abra, both schools being recognized by the government. He has a child
two months old. He has never been accused of any crime involving moral
turpitude. He is not opposed to organized government, nor is he a
member of any subversive organization. He does not believe in, nor
practice, polygamy. Since his birth, he has never gone abroad. He
mingles with the Filipinos. He prefers a democratic form of government
and stated that if his petition is granted he would serve the
government either in the military or civil department.

He is
a merchant dealing in the buy and sell of tobacco. He also is part
owner of a store known as “Go Tian Store” in Bangued, Abra. In his
tobacco business, he has a working capital of P10,000.00 which he
claims to have been accumulated thru savings. He contributes to civic
and charitable organizations like the Jaycees, Rotary, Red Cross and to
town fiestas. He likes the customs of the Filipinos because he has
resided in the Philippines for a long time. During the year 1956, he
claims to have earned P1,000.00 in his tobacco business. He expects to
make P2,000.00 more from the same business without however specifying
to what years said income would correspond. With respect to the store
of which he claims to be a part owner, he stated that his father gave
him a sum of less than P3,000.00 representing one-fourth of the sales.
Aside from being a co-owner of said store, he receives a monthly salary
of P120.00 as a salesman therein.

He took a course in radio
mechanics and completed the same in 1955. He has no vice of any kind.
He claims that he has never been delinquent in the payment of taxes.
But he admitted that he did not file his income tax return when he
allegedly received an amount of not less than P3,000 from his father
which he claims to have invested in his tobacco business. On
cross-examination, when the fiscal asked him if he believed in the
principle underlying the Philippine constitution, he answered that “He
believes in the laws of the Philippines.” However, he did not state
what principles of the Constitution he knew, although when asked what
laws of the Philippines he believes in, he answered “democracy”. Asked
why he did not file his income tax return, he stated that his father
had already filed his income tax return. He merely promised, that he
would file his. He presented his alien certificate of registration, but
did not present the alien certificates of registration of his wife and
child.

The government is now appealing the decision of the
trial court on the ground that it erred in finding that petitioner has
all the qualifications for naturalization and none of the
disqualifications mentioned in the law.

The government
contends that from the evidence itself introduced by petitioner it
would appear that he failed to comply with some of the requirements
prescribed by law in order to qualify him to become a Filipino citizen.
Thus, it is claimed, he has not stated that he believes in the
principles underlying the constitution and that it was only on
cross-examination, when the fiscal asked him whether he believed in the
principles underlying the constitution, that he answered that “He
believes in the laws of the Philippines”, and that when he was asked
what those laws he believes in, he gave an answer which conveys the
meaning that he believes in democracy or in a democratic form of
government. It is contended that such belief is not sufficient to
comply with the requirement of the law that one must believe in the
principles underlying our constitution. There is merit in this claim;
Indeed, the scope of the word law in ordinary legal parlance
does not necessarily include the constitution which is the fundamental
law of the land, nor does it cover all the principles underlying our
constitution. Thus, our constitution expressly declares as one of its
fundamental policies that the Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, that the defense of the State is the
prime duty of the government, that the duty and right of the parents to
rear their children for civic efficiency shall receive the support of
the State, and that the promotion of social justice shall be its main
concern. In so stating that he believes merely in our laws, he did not
necessarily refer to those principles embodied in our constitution
which are referred to in the law.

Our law also requires that
petitioner must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
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 is living. It is contended that petitioner has
also failed to comply with this legal requirement for he failed to show
that he has complied with his obligation to register his wife and child
with the Bureau of Immigration as required by the Alien Registration
Act. He has, therefore, failed to conduct himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner in his relation with our government.

It furthermore appears that he failed to file his income tax return
despite the fact that he has a fixed salary of P1,440.00 a year and
made a profit of P1,000.00 in his tobacco business, and received an
amount less than P3,000 from his father as one-fourth of the proceeds
of the sale of the store, the total of which is more than what is
required by law for one to file an income-tax return, a fact which
indicates that he has not also conducted himself properly in his
relation with our government. His reasoning that he made that earning
during the year in which this case was being heard is not convincing.

Considering that “naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and
strictly construed in favor of the government and against the
applicant” (Co Quing Reyes vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 889), we are constrained to hold that the trial court erred in granting the petition for naturalization.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla and Montemayor, JJ., took no part.