G.R. No. 12400. March 29, 1961
SY ANG HOC ALIAS MANUEL TE ANG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
PAREDES, J.:
Petitioner Sy Ang Hoc produced evidence tending to show the following facts.
Petitioner was born in Amoy, China, on May 28, 1933, of Ong Kim Bee and
Te Chiok Lan, both Chinese citizens. He arrived in the Philippines with
his parents on November 5, 1937, on board the vessel SS “ANKING“,
never left the country since then, and is duly registered as an alien
with the Bureau of Immigration (Exhs. H & I). Upon his arrival in
the Philippines, he stayed for a month in Manila, moved to barrio
Tibagon, Pantukan, Davao, and then settled in Davao City where he has
his permanent residence at No. 19 Monteverde Avenue, Davao City. He
first enrolled at the Pantukan Elementary school and then transferred
to the Davao Chinese School where he finished his High School. He is
single, a Roman Catholic and at present (time he testified), a fourth
year medical student at the University of Sto. Tomas, and speaks and
writes the English and the Tagalog languages and Visayan dialect. An
owner of a house valued P5,500.00, located at Uyanguran St., Davao
City, petitioner was also employed as a purchasing agent of his parents
in their sawali business, with a monthly salary of P150.00 and
has filed his income tax returns for the years 1954 and 1955 (Exhibits
K, K-1, L, M, M-1 & M-2). Petitioner believes in the underlying
principles of the Constitution; has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his entire period of residence in the
Philippines, as, well as in his relationship with the Philippine
Government and the community in which he lives and mingled socially
with Filipinos. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Club
Davaweno, a social organization of Davao students in the City of
Manila, also of the “Taumo”, a medical fraternity in the University of
Sto. Tomas, and the Cebu “Gyome”, an organization of medical students.
He is not opposed to organized government nor affiliated with any
association or group which teaches or upholds the doctrine opposing
organized government; does not believe in the necessity of propriety of
violence, personal assault or association for the success of one’s
ideas; does not believe in polygamy, and has never been convicted of
any crime involving moral torputude. Petitioner has obtained clearances
from the Police Department, the Municipal Court and the Court of First
Instance of Davao City. He is not suffering, from any incurable
disease. Intending to reside permanently and continuously in the
Philippines, he is disposed to renounce absolutely and forever all
allegiance and fidelity to the Republic of China. Petitioner has
previously filed an application for Philippine citizenship.
Mamerto Cabarroguis, the Provincial Auditor of Davao and Gerardo
Miñosa, a logging concessionaire, were presented as character
witnesses. Cabarroguis testified that he had resided in Mabini street,
Davao City, since July 4, 1953. He has known petitioner since 1940,
when he met him for the first time in Kingking, a place about 90
kilometers from Davao City. Petitioner was 10 years old then. During
the occupation, Cabarroguis did not have any occasion to see petitioner
as he (Cabarroguis) had evacuated to the forest. The witness came to
see petitioner again after liberation when petitioner returned to Davao
City. In 1947, witness was assigned as Provincial Auditor of Jolo and
then to Oriental Misamis. He was reassigned to Davao in January, 1953.
Miñosa declared that he had been a resident of Davao City since 1930.
He came to know petitioner continuously since 1942, when he met said
petitioner in Tibangan, Kingking, where he (witness) used to go by
banca to hunt for food. Although he was living in Tibungco, Davao, some
70 kilometers away from Tibangan, Miñosa used to pass and eat at the
store of petitioner every week. In 1945, he (Miñosa) transferred to
Quezon Boulevard, Santa. Ana district, Davao City and petitioner also
followed suit and transferred to the same district about 1 kilometer
away.
The CFI of Davao held:
In consideration of all the foregoing, the Court hereby declares and
admits the petitioner Manuel Ang as Filipino Citizen by naturalization
upon the fulfillment of all the other requisites provided for by
Republic Act 530″.
Against this decision
the Republic appealed, urging the reversal of the same on the sole
ground that the trial court erred in holding that the two character
witnesses of the petitioner are qualified witnesses.
We are of the belief that petitioner Sy Ang Hoc alias Manuel Te Ang, has not established his right to become a Filipino citizen.
Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473 requires that there should be an
averment in the petition for naturalization that the petitioner has
complied with the requirements of section 5 of said act, which refers
to the filing of a declaration of intention to become a Filipino
citizen, one (1) year prior to the filing of the petition for
naturalization, in this particular case, June 16, 1954. Petitioner has
not averred in his petition that “he has complied with the requirements
of section five of this Act”. It is true that on May 22, 1953, within
the reglementary period, the petition filed with the office of the
Solicitor General a declaration of intention (Exh. D). But the law
provides specifically that the filing of the declaration of intention
must be averred in the petition. And not only that, the last part of
said section 7 states “The certificate of arrival and the declaration
of intention must, be made part of the petition”. The
declaration of intention is so essential in cases of naturalization
that its incorporation in the petition itself has become jurisdictional.
The petitioner alleged in his petition and asserted in court that he
was born in “Amoy, China, on May 28, 1933”. Yet, according to his
certificate of baptism Exh. J, petitioner (Manuel Te Ang) was born on
March 19, 1933 in Tibagon, Pantukan, Davao. Petitioner explaining the
discrepancy as to dates and places of birth, said that “the date here
(Exhibit J) has an error because when we were baptized we were three
brothers, so my birthday was jumbled up with my brothers, and I
procured one of the copies which I gave to Atty. Lim.” (t.s.n. p. 96).
This uncorroborated explanation does not inspire confidence.
Petitioner declared that he was an employee of the Ang Kim Bee Trading,
owned by his father, with a salary of P150.00 a month, increased to
P180.00 a month. This can hardly be considered as a lucrative calling
or trade, having in mind the fact that he was a student, paying P80.00
for board and lodging monthly, and P15.00 for laundry, and had to buy
books and pay tuition fees and defray other personal expenses as a
medical student. In fact, he had to receive financial help from his
parents and relatives. From all appearances, the so-called salary of
P150.00 from his father’s company were mere allowances given to him, to
pursue his studies, and not as earning in a lucrative trade.
“*
* * When the employment of a petitioner for naturalization is by his
father and in the business of the latter, such evidence of employment
is not very convincing, as it is possible that father and son, in the
interest of the petition, testify to the alleged employment even though
the son may only be living under the protection and at the expense of
his father (Velasco vs. Republic, 108 Phil., 234). (Charm Chan vs. Republic, 108 Phil., 882).
Petitioner testified that he owned a house located at 145 Uyanguren
Street, Davao, assessed at P5,500, declared for taxation purposes (Exh.
N). It is hard to believe that he could have saved enough money, as a
student earning P150 a month, and bought a house worth more than P5,000
which is the value required by law in order to be qualified as a real
property owner. He allegedly bought the house from a dose friend Ang Ko
Beng for P4,500 on September 18, 1956, after the filing of the petition
on June 16, 1954, partly from his savings, plus P2,000 he borrowed from
Vicente Angliongto, a near relative. Aside from the bare statement of
petitioner, no other proofs were offered to this effect. And
considering the fact that the lot on which this house was erected,
belonged to Mrs. Garcia, to whom he was paying a monthly rental of
P30.00, it stands to reason that petitioner was not a real property
owner, but that he acquired the house to suit his convenience in
connection with his application for citizenship.
The
qualification of Miñosa as character witness is seriously doubted. The
law requires that the testimony of a character witness must not only be
credible but also the witness himself. There is no evidence that Miñosa
has a good standing in his community or that he is honest and upright
or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable (Ong vs. Republic, 103 Phil., 964; (See also Dy Shui Sheng vs. Republic, 107 Phil., 718; 58 Off. Gaz.; [14] 2904.)
Taking into account the fact that naturalization laws should be rigidly
enforced in favor of the Government and against the applicant (Co Ching
vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 889); this Court, in view of the
foregoing, does not see its way clear to grant the petitioner, Filipino
citizenship.
Decision appealed from is reversed and petition denied. Costs against the petitioner.
Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Dizon, JJ., concur.