RAMON L. CHENG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

The Republic of the Philippines is appealing the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Cavite, granting the petition for
naturalization of Ramon L. Cheng.

Petitioner Ramon L. Cheng filed his application for naturalization
on August 6, 1955, which application was duly published as required by
law. Mariano V. Benedicto, Provincial Fiscal and Acting City Attorney,
filed a written opposition to the application, alleging that the
applicant did not possess all the necessary qualifications required by
Commonwealth Act 473, as amended by Act 535; that the applicant had no
sincere desire to become a Filipino citizen, his petition being
motivated by his desire for economic convenience, and that during his
stay in the country, he had not mingled socially with Filipinos or
evinced his sincere desire to learn the ideals and embrace the customs
and traditions of Filipinos. At the hearing, the applicant presented
oral and documentary evidence. The Government also presented evidence
in support of its opposition. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a
decision dated March 29, 1957, which is now on appeal.

We have examined the record of the case and we are satisfied that
the findings of the trial court are amply supported by the evidence. We
quote with favor pertinent portions of said decision:

“Attached to the petition is the joint affidavit of
witnesses Ex-Governor Ramon Samonte and Mr. Jose Auditor, both of the
City of Cavite.

“From the documentary and oral evidence
presented by the petitioner, it has been established that he was born
in Cavite City on September 14, 1934 of Chinese parentage; that he is
single and more than 21 years of age at the time of the hearing of this
petition; that by reason of his birth he was issued a native born
certificate of residence, and has registered himself as an alien with
the Bureau of Immigration; that he received his primary and secondary
education in private schools recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality. Thus, petitioner is exempted from
the requirement of the law to make a declaration of intention, it was
also established that he has never left the Philippines.

“Also,
from the oral and documentary evidence adduced, it was satisfactorily
shown that petitioner is an assistant, manager in the Central Grocery
receiving a monthly salary of P250.00, which satisfies the legal
requirement that petitioner must have a lucrative trade, profession or
lawful occupation.

“Regarding the moral character of the
petitioner, we have before us his uncontroverted testimony and that of
the two witnesses presented by him, namely, ex-Governor Ramon Samonte
and Mr. Jose Auditor.

“Mr. Ramon Samonte, testified that he
stood as the sponsor at the baptism of the petitioner and has known him
since then; that he knows the petitioner to be a person of good repute
and morally irreproachable, attached the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution and well disposed to good order and happiness
in the Philippines; that in his opinion, petitioner has all the
qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines; that
ho ratifies the contents of the Affidavit of Witnesses.

“Jose
Auditor, Ex-Councilor of Cavite City, testified that he knows
petitioner since birth; that because they were neighbors he knows
petitioner to be continuously residing at Cavite City; that petitioner
is a person, of good repute and morally irreproachable a believer in
the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and in his
opinion, petitioner is fit to become a Filipino citizen.

“From
the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it was also established
unrebutted that the petitioner has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner in his relation with the constituted government
as well as with the community in which he lives.

“This Court
is satisfactorily convinced of petitioner’s ability to speak and write
English and Tagalog languages, he having received elementary and
secondary education in the XIII Martires College and in the St.
Joseph’s College. It further appears that he is well informed of the
Philippine social life; has mingled socially with the Filipinos; that
he has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipinos. In fact, petitioner testified
that he does not know Chinese customs because he was born here, grew up
here and has come to imbibe the Filipino way of life.

“Petitioner
testified that he is not opposed to organized government nor is he
affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines antagonistic to organized government; that he does not
believe in the necessity of violence for the predominance of one’s
ideas. Petitioner is single and does not believe in the practice of
polygamy. He has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude. He is not suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases. Petitioner testified that he is a follower of
Nationalist China, which is not at war with the Philippines. This Court
takes judicial notice that the laws of Nationalist China permit
Filipinos to be naturalized in that country (Yee Ho Mann vs. Republic of the Philippines 83 Phil., 749; 46 Off. Gaz. [11] 201).”

The Government in its appeal raises several points which in our
opinion, are either of minor importance or are not supported by the
evidence. For instance, it claims that there is a discrepancy in the
surname of petitioner, for the reason that his application bore, the
name of “Ramon L. Ching” whereas when testifying at the hearing,
applicant gave his name as “Ramon L. Cheng”. It was explained, however,
that the discrepancy was an error committed in good faith because the
applicant had been indiscriminately called Ching and Cheng by his
friends, and for this reason, during the hearing, he moved for the
correction of the spelling of his surname, which was granted by the
trial court in an order directing that the name be corrected from Ching
to Cheng. This was done without any opposition on the part of the
Government.

The Government also doubts that the applicant was earning P250.00 a
month at the Central Grocery and that he was the manager or assistant
manager of said grocery. It is a fact, however, that the very witness
for the Government, Atty. Amable Ibañez, labor attorney in the Bureau
of Labor, assigned to Cavite City, who had occasion to investigate the
applicant and his business and verify his report on the employees of
the Central Grocery and their wages, found that the applicant was
really the assistant manager of said grocery, sometimes acting as
manager in the absence of the real manager, and that he was earning a
salary of P250.00 a month.

Then the Government claims that in one or two of applicant’s
residence certificates, he made it appear that he was a Filipino, which
was not true. This point was adequately discussed and passed upon by
the trial court, as shown by the portion of its decision which we
reproduce below:

“The City Fiscal likewise maintains that petitioner
caused it to appear in his 1955 residence certificate, Exhibit ‘4’,
that he is a ‘Filipino’ when in fact he is a Chinese national. He
argues that by this act of the petitioner, the Filipino people would be
misled as to his true citizenship. According to the petitioner, he gave
his 1954 Residence Certificate to the issuing clerk who just merely
copied its contents in the certificate in question. He further
explained that because he was in a hurry he was not able to read the
entries therein and consequently, did not notice the word ‘Filipino’
written in said certificate. The Court does not view with sympathetic
regard the argument of the City Fiscal that with this act of the
petitioner, the Filipino people would be misled thereby. That fear or
apprehension of the Fiscal if merely in the realm of surmise or
conjecture because he did not adduce any evidence which would show or
attempt to show that any Filipino was misled, or that some damage was
caused due to this alleged act of petitioner. On the contrary, to show
that it was error on the part of the issuing clerk and could not have
been done by him, petitioner called the attention of the former that
his citizenship is Chinese and not Filipino as stated in Exhibit ‘4’
when he got his 1956 and 1957 residence certificates, Exhibit ‘Y’. In
fact, it appears in his 1953 residence certificate, Exhibit ‘X’, that
he is a Chinese and as testified to by him, the same is true with his
1954 residence certificates.”

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised In the
Government’s appeal. We are satisfied and agree with the trial court
that the applicant has more than satisfied the requirements of the law
for naturalization, and that he is entitled to become a Filipino
citizen. Said the trial court in the latter part of its decision:

“The Court had occasion to observe, petitioner in
the courtroom and from his aspect and demeanor in the witness stand,
the way he spoke and dressed, coupled with the manner he behaved, among
the crowd or spectators inside the courtroom before and after the
hearings, this Court is fully persuaded that he has evinced a sincere
desire not only to learn and like Filipino customs, habits, traditions
and way of life but he has also already embraced them and acts as if he
is already a Filipino.”

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.