MANUEL YAP, ALIAS YAP SUAT POO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by the Solicitor General from the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Cebu granting the petition of Manuel
Yap alias Yap Suat Poo for naturalization as a citizen of the
Philippines,

On March 8, 1955 Manuel Yap alias Yap Suat Poo filed a petition for
naturalization under oath in the Court of First Instance of Cebu under
the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by Commonwealth
Act No. 535 and Republic Act No. 530. It alleged, inter alia, that
having been born in the Philippines and having received his primary and
secondary education in schools recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race v or nationality, petitioner was exempt from the
requirement of filing his declaration of intention with the Office of
the Solicitor General one year prior to the filing of the petition.

In support of his petition, petitioner presented the affidavits of
Gilbert V. Emata, Instructor in Mathematics, Cebu Institute of
Technology; Rafael F. Yap, BSC graduate and Bookkeeper, Maximino S.
Ylaya, Lawyer; and Antonio R. Avilla, Lawyer, all Filipinos and
prominent residents of Cebu City, but only Emata and Yap were called to
testify on the day of the hearing.

After due publication of the notice of hearing, the petition was heard on the merits.

The evidence of record shows that petitioner is single and was born
on March 9, 1931 in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, of Chinese parents
named Yap Chui and Lim Wan; that 1 he completed his primary and
secondary grades, as well as his high school education, in private
institutions in the City of Cebu; that he finished his 1st and 2nd
years of engineering at the Cebu Institute of Technology, also of said
city, and his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the
Mapua Institute of Technology in Manila; that all the schools attended
by petitioner are private institutions recognized by the Government
where Philippine Government, Civics and History are taught.

It also appears that petitioner can write and speak fluently the
English language and the Cebu-Visayan dialect; that he was formerly
employed a» a salesman of the Royal Grocery in Cebu City with a monthly
salary of P140.00 and, at the time his application was filed, was
employed as assistant cashier of the Pan Asiatic Commercial Co., Inc.
in Manila with a salary of P220.00 a month; that he had no liability in
favor of the Government ; and that he possesses all the qualifications
required under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under
Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.

The ground relied upon by the Solicitor General in support of the
appeal taken by the Government is that Gilbert V. Emata, one of
petitioner’s witnesses, had not known him for at least five years prior
to the filing of his petition for naturalization. We find this to be
without merit.

The testimony of said witness shows that he had known petitioner
before the last world war, having been his classmate in the fourth
grade; that while they became separated during the war, they had
occasion to write to each other; that they met again in 1948 when they
took summer courses in the Cebu Institute of. Technology, and then
became classmates again in 1950-1952 in the same institute; that when
petitioner went to Manila to finish his studies at the Mapua Institute
of Technology in the school years 1952-1953 and 1953-1954, they also
had occasion to correspond with each other and met personally every
year during the period of vacation when petitioner went back to Cebu to
spend his vacation, residing at 253 Comercio St., Cebu City, while
Emata resided at 62 Figueroa St. of the same city. It appearing from
the record that the petition for naturalization was filed on March 8,
1955, we believe that the testimony of Emata is sufficient to show that
he had known petitioner for at least five years prior to the filing of
said petition.

We have heretofore held, however, that it is incumbent upon a
petitioner for naturalization to prove affirmatively, not only with his
testimony but also with that of the persons whose affidavits were filed
in support of the petition for naturalization, that he does not possess
any one of the disqualifications provided by Section 4 of Commonwealth
Act No. 473 (Santiago Ng vs. Republic, supra p. 480). In this
connection, petitioner testified that he is not oposed to
organized government and was not affiliated to any association or group
of persons that uphold and teach doctrines opposed to organized
government; that he does not believe in defending or teaching the
necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination
for ” the success and predominance of his ideas; that he does not
believe in Communism nor in the practice of polygamy; that he has never
been arrested for or charged with any crime involving moral turpitude
nor was he suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases; that during the period of his residence in the Philippines—
which country he has never left—he had mingled socially with the
Filipinos and had learned and embraced their customs, traditions and
ideals.

His testimony on the above matters is supported by the following
documentary evidence: (a) Exhibit 0, a tax clearance issued by the
Provincial Revenue Officer of Cebu on May 4, 1956; (6) Exhibit P, a
certificate issued by Leo P. Geronilla, Deputy Treasurer of Cebu City
in charge of internal affairs, to the effect that petitioner was not
engaged in any business requiring payment of internal revenue and/or
municipal license taxes and that he had no other tax liability; (c)
Exhibit Q, a certificate issued by Jose L. Abad, Fiscal, City of Cebu,
to the effect that he personally knows petitioner, a resident of such
city, to be a person of good moral character and that, according to the
records of his office, petitioner had not been charged with any crijme;
(d) Exhibit R dated May 2, 1956 issued by Enrique E. Carson, Captain of
the Cebu Police Department, giving petitioner a.police clearance; (e)
Exhibit S of June 4, 1956, a certificate issued by Agustin Patricio, by
authority of Director Lukban of the National Bureau of Investigation,
to the effect that said office had no derogatory record against
petitioner; (/) Exhibit T of May 7, 1956, a similar certificate issued
by Felipe M. Fetalvero, Provincial Commander, Philippine Constabulary,
with headquarters in Cebu; (g) Exhibit V dated August 20, 1957, a
certificate issued by the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of
Cebu, to the effect that, according to the records of the court,
petitioner had never been charged with any criminal offense in said
court; (h) Exhibit V of August 20, 1957, a similar certificate issued
by the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Court, City of Cebu; (i).
Exhibit W dated August 20, 1957 issued by Apolinar B. Faustino of the
Bureau of Immigration, to the effect that f in said office there was no
derogatory information against petitioner, (j) Exhibit X, a
certificate dated August 20, 1957 issued by Dr. Alejandro C. Baltazar,
City Health Officer, Cebu City, to the effect that on August 20, 1957
petitioner was physically examined by him and found free from any
communicable disease and that the results of fluoroscopic examination
showed that his lungs were apparently clear and his heart normal, and
(k) Exhibits M and N, his Income Tax Returns for the years 1955 and
1956.

In addition to the facts testified to by Gilbert V. Emata stated
heretofore and, with particular reference to the disqualifications
provided by Jaw, said witness testified that petitioner is well-behaved
and of irreproachable character; that he had not been involved in any
quarrel; that he is not a member of any Chinese association and he is
not a Communist; that he is not sick of any contagious disease or any
communicable disease; that he had not attended any Chinese school.

For his part, the other witness, Rafael Yap, testified that he is
not related to petitioner whom he came to know in 1938 when they lived
in neighboring houses located at Leon Kilat St., Cebu City; that during
the war they met in the municipality of Tabogon, Cebu, hometown of the
witness, where petitioner and his family evacuated; that after the war
they met again in the city of Cebu; that before the war, petitioner was
studying at the Southern College and after the war he studied at the
Cebu Institute of Technology, Cebu City, and later at the Mapua
Institute of Technology, Manila; that while they lived in Cebu he and
petitioner used to go out together to see games, to fiestas and
religious activities with Filipino friends; that petitioner had never
been arrested, charged, nor convicted of any criminal offense; that
after petitioner’s graduation he first worked at the Royal Grocery as
purchasing agent with a monthly salary of F140.00; that petitioner is
of good moral character and speaks English and the Visayan dialect;
that during the war petitioner did not collaborate with the Japanese;
that he has never been sick of any contagious disease, nor has he ever
been a member of any subversive organization and, finally, that he is a
Roman Catholic.

While the testimony of Emata proves that petitioner is not a
communist and has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude; that he mingled with Filipinos whose customs he has adopted
and that he is of irreproachrable character, the testimony of Rafael
Yap appear to be more deficient and unsatisfactory. The testimony of
both witnesses not giving sufficient facts from which we may infer that
petitioner—as personally known to them—is not a person opposed to
organized government; that he is not affiliated to any group of persons
who uphold and teach doctrines opposed to organized government; that he
does not defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence,
personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of
his ideas and that he does not believe in the practice of polygamy, we
are constrained to hold that it is not sufficient to establish the
absence of the disqualifications specified in the Naturalization Act.
As stated in Ng vs. Republic of the Philippines (supra), the absence of
the disqualifications provided by law is part and parcel of the case
for naturalization, and petitioner has the burden of proving such
absence affirmatively, in addition to his possession of the positive
qualifications required by the statute.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and another
rendered denying the petition for naturalization filed by petitioner
Manuel Yap alias Yap Suat Poo.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Baustista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.