IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHAN CHEN ALIAS ANTONIO CHAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHAN CHEN ALIAS ANTONIO CHAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF…

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
granting Chan Chen’s application for naturalization.

It appears that applicant Chan Chen alias Antonio Chan, a Chinese
citizen, who alleges to be a resident of Cebu City, applied for citizenship on
February 18, 1956 in the Court below. Attached to the petition were the
affidavits of applicant’s two character witnesses, namely, Ramiro P. Atilo, who
claims to have known applicant continuously since 1947 and Cesar Las Pinas, who
claims having known said applicant since 1940.

After the petition was heard with the applicant and hi3 witnesses taking the
stand, one Damaso del Rosario, a resident of Cebu City, filed a written
opposition to the aforesaid petition on the ground that applicant has been made
respondent in several labor cases for collection of separation and overtime pay,
as well as under-payment before the Department of Labor, and also for estafa and
violation of the Blue Sunday Law, which cases were pending before the fiscars
office of Cebu City.

On June 1,1957, the lower court finding that the applicant has all the
qualifications necessary for naturalization and none of the disqualifications
provided for by law, rendered a decision granting the application. Alleging that
the evidence submitted during the hearing was “insufficient to support the
finding of the trial court that petitioner possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications to become a naturalized citizen,” the Provincial
Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion for new trial or reopening of the case. The motion
was granted, but after the reception of evidence, the lower court promulgated
its order dated November 4, 1957, reiterating its decision of June 1, 1957,
granting the application for naturalization. Hence, this appeal taken by the
Government.

Appellant’s contentions, as stated in the Solicitor General’s brief are (1)
that one of the two character witnesses introduced by appellee has not satisfied
the statutory requirement as to the period of time he has known the petitioner
as a resident; (2) that the petitioner has not conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines; and (3) that he lacks sincerity in his desire to become a
naturalized Filipino citizen.

We find merit in the above contentions of the Solicitor General.

As required by section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, a petition
for naturalization must be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible
persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know
the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time
required by the Act. Accordingly, where the affidavit of the witness attached to
the application for naturalization states that the affiant had known the
applicant for less than the period* required prior to the filing thereof, the
petition has been declared fatally defective.

As required by section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, (Cu vs.
Republic, 89 Phil., 473; Awad vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 569; Sy Chut
vs. Republic, 102 Phil., 839; see also Yu Chong Tian vs.
Republic, 94 Phil., 742; Karam Singh vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 622; 51
Off. Gaz., 5172; Dy Tian Siong vs. Republic, 103 Phil., 363; 55 Off.
Gaz., 420; Go Kiam Lam vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13571, January 31,
1959.) From the affidavit of witness Ramiro P. Atilo, as affirmed by him in his
direct testimony, it appears that he came to know the petitioner only in 1947,
or barely 9 years prior to February 18, 1956 when the latter’s application for
naturalization was filed. Such failure to know petitioner for the statutory
period of residence required by law, which is 10 years in this case, renders the
petition defective from the very beginning and, therefore, the lower court
should not have entertained it at all.

We also note that the other character witness, Cesar Las Pifias, while
declaring that he had known the petitioner since 1940 in Cebu City, admitted
that he is a certified public accountant and that petitioner is his retainer
client. Considering that the question of a witness’ qualification in a
naturalization proceeding is a matter of more than usual importance since “they
are in a way insurers of the character of the candidate concerned,” we are not
prepared to say that this witness possesses the qualifications necessary to
satisfy the requirements of the law.

It is also on record, as stated by the Solicitor General, that petitioner has
been found guilty of violating labor laws regarding the payment of wages to his
employees, and sentenced to pay the corresponding money claim against him. The
decision in the case was rendered ex parte but this appears to be due
to petitioner’s own fault, since he did not even care to appear at the hearing
despite summons served upon him. While the present case was pending trial below,
petitioner, it would seem, voluntarily settled the money claim against him
although for less than the amount adjudicated. This conduct of petitioner, as
observed by the Solicitor General, does not speak well of him, as it is not
improbable that his belated payment of the claim, resulting in the complaint’s
withdrawal of his written opposition to the application for naturalization was
but an 11th hour compliance with the decision, to facilitate the grant of said
application.

Finally, petitioner’s sincerity in becoming a Filipino citizen has been put
in serious doubt. In the course of his testimony, he positively declared that he
was not willing to embrace Philippine citizenship if he would not be allowed to
acquire real estate property; that his interest was to acquire real property;
and that being in business his main purpose is to stand on equal footing with
Filipinos who are also engaged in business. Petitioner having, by his own
admission, mercenary motives in applying for naturalization, and considering
that “naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in
favor of the government and against the applicant” (Co Quing y Reyes
vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 889; Co vs. Republic, 108 Phil., 265;
58 Off. Gaz. [9] 1718), the trial court erred in granting the petition.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and the petition for
naturalization denied, with costs against petitioner-appellee.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B.
L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.