EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-21446. April 29, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEE TIT alias SIA KHUY TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEE TIT alias SIA KHUY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Luis V. Diores for petitioner and appellee.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor C. P. Ylagan for oppositor and appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; CHARACTER WITNESSES; WHERE WITNESS IS THE FATHER OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL. — One of the witnesses presented by petitioner was the father of his counsel. With such relationship, said witness could not have testified with such independence of mind as is required of character witnesses in naturalization cases.
2. ID.; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF AN ALIAS. — The unauthorized use by the applicant of an alias is a valid ground for the denial of his application. (Wang I. Fu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15819, September 29, 1962.)
3. ID.; REQUIREMENT OF IRREPROACHABLE CONDUCT; FALSIFICATION OF INCOME TAX RETURNS. — In his income tax returns for 1961, it appears that applicant had a wife and thus obtained an exemption of P3,000.00. But in his testimony it appears that his Chinese wife has been unheard of since the second World War and he presumes her to be dead. This apparent contradiction shows that petitioner lacks the honesty and sincerity required of an applicant for Philippine citizenship.
4. ID.; SINCERITY TO EMBRACE FILIPINO CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS; FAILURE OF APPLICANT TO INQUIRE AS TO WHEREABOUTS OF HIS WIFE. — The fact that the applicant did not take pains in finding the whereabouts and well-being of his wife who, he claims, he had not heard of since the war, demonstrates lack of love and affection on his part, something not characteristic of a Filipino.
2. ID.; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF AN ALIAS. — The unauthorized use by the applicant of an alias is a valid ground for the denial of his application. (Wang I. Fu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15819, September 29, 1962.)
3. ID.; REQUIREMENT OF IRREPROACHABLE CONDUCT; FALSIFICATION OF INCOME TAX RETURNS. — In his income tax returns for 1961, it appears that applicant had a wife and thus obtained an exemption of P3,000.00. But in his testimony it appears that his Chinese wife has been unheard of since the second World War and he presumes her to be dead. This apparent contradiction shows that petitioner lacks the honesty and sincerity required of an applicant for Philippine citizenship.
4. ID.; SINCERITY TO EMBRACE FILIPINO CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS; FAILURE OF APPLICANT TO INQUIRE AS TO WHEREABOUTS OF HIS WIFE. — The fact that the applicant did not take pains in finding the whereabouts and well-being of his wife who, he claims, he had not heard of since the war, demonstrates lack of love and affection on his part, something not characteristic of a Filipino.
D E C I S I O N
REGALA, J.:
Lee Tit, a Chinaman, applied for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
The evidence shows the following: The petitioner was born in China on August 1, 1912, of Chinese parents. As son of a merchant he came to the country in 1932 and never returned to China. Residing in the Philippines since then, he stayed for sometime in Ayungan, Negros Oriental, but he is now a resident of Cebu City. He is a widower without children. He speaks and writes English and Cebu-Visayan dialect. Since 1947, petitioner has been employed as salesman at the Lian Sing Trading with a salary of P250 a month with free board and lodging. He owns a house at Cebu City valued at P5,000 which he rents out for P200 a month. In 1960 he earned P2,040 and in 1961 his income was P4,177.80.
The petitioner testified inter alia that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence here; that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos; that he evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace Filipino customs, ideals and traditions; that he is not opposed to organized government; and that he neither believes in nor practices polygamy.
With this evidence, the lower court, over the opposition interposed by the Government, granted the petition.
The Solicitor General has appealed, pointing out several errors committed by the trial court. The petitioner-appellee has not refuted appellant’s assignment of errors, failing to file a reply brief within the reglementary period.
The Solicitor General first assails the credibility of the character witnesses presented by petitioner. Witness Ramon Diores admitted that the petitioner’s counsel in this case, Atty. Luis Diores, is his own son. We agree with the Solicitor General that with such a relationship, Ramon Diores could not have testified with such independence of mind as is required of character witnesses in naturalization cases. In a similar case (Albert Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, G. R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964), where one of the witnesses was the lawyer of petitioner’s father, We held that "this circumstance lends doubt as to the veracity of his testimony, and leads one to conclude that his declarations are biased and untrustworthy."cralaw virtua1aw library
The appellant has also shown that the said Diores and his co-witness, Alejandro Borces, came to know the petitioner only in 1947, so that they could not vouch, as they claim, for petitioner’s goodness of character and conduct during the entire period of his stay in this country. 1
Another objection raised by the Solicitor General is on the petitioner’s using an alias "Sia Khuy." We find this a valid ground for the denial of petitioner’s application, because it appears that this use of an alias was never judicially authorized. (See Wang I Fu v. Republic, supra.)
As also pointed out, petitioner has shown that he lacks the honesty or sincerity required of an applicant for Philippine citizenship. In his income tax returns for 1961, it appears that he had a wife and thus obtained an exemption in the amount of P3,000.00. But in his testimony, it appears that his Chinese wife has been unheard of since the second world war and he presumes her to be dead. This apparent contradiction does not speak well of petitioner. He actually falsified his income tax return for 1961 so as to gain exemption of P3,000.00.
Speaking of his wife, in this connection, the fact that petitioner did not take pains in finding out as to her whereabouts and well-being, further demonstrates lack of love and affection on his part, something not characteristic of a Filipino.
We need not go further to discuss the other errors assigned by the Solicitor General. The above defects on the part of the petitioner call for the dismissal of his application for naturalization.
In view hereof, the decision granting the petition is hereby reversed, with costs against the Petitioner-Appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
The evidence shows the following: The petitioner was born in China on August 1, 1912, of Chinese parents. As son of a merchant he came to the country in 1932 and never returned to China. Residing in the Philippines since then, he stayed for sometime in Ayungan, Negros Oriental, but he is now a resident of Cebu City. He is a widower without children. He speaks and writes English and Cebu-Visayan dialect. Since 1947, petitioner has been employed as salesman at the Lian Sing Trading with a salary of P250 a month with free board and lodging. He owns a house at Cebu City valued at P5,000 which he rents out for P200 a month. In 1960 he earned P2,040 and in 1961 his income was P4,177.80.
The petitioner testified inter alia that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence here; that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos; that he evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace Filipino customs, ideals and traditions; that he is not opposed to organized government; and that he neither believes in nor practices polygamy.
With this evidence, the lower court, over the opposition interposed by the Government, granted the petition.
The Solicitor General has appealed, pointing out several errors committed by the trial court. The petitioner-appellee has not refuted appellant’s assignment of errors, failing to file a reply brief within the reglementary period.
The Solicitor General first assails the credibility of the character witnesses presented by petitioner. Witness Ramon Diores admitted that the petitioner’s counsel in this case, Atty. Luis Diores, is his own son. We agree with the Solicitor General that with such a relationship, Ramon Diores could not have testified with such independence of mind as is required of character witnesses in naturalization cases. In a similar case (Albert Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, G. R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964), where one of the witnesses was the lawyer of petitioner’s father, We held that "this circumstance lends doubt as to the veracity of his testimony, and leads one to conclude that his declarations are biased and untrustworthy."cralaw virtua1aw library
The appellant has also shown that the said Diores and his co-witness, Alejandro Borces, came to know the petitioner only in 1947, so that they could not vouch, as they claim, for petitioner’s goodness of character and conduct during the entire period of his stay in this country. 1
Another objection raised by the Solicitor General is on the petitioner’s using an alias "Sia Khuy." We find this a valid ground for the denial of petitioner’s application, because it appears that this use of an alias was never judicially authorized. (See Wang I Fu v. Republic, supra.)
As also pointed out, petitioner has shown that he lacks the honesty or sincerity required of an applicant for Philippine citizenship. In his income tax returns for 1961, it appears that he had a wife and thus obtained an exemption in the amount of P3,000.00. But in his testimony, it appears that his Chinese wife has been unheard of since the second world war and he presumes her to be dead. This apparent contradiction does not speak well of petitioner. He actually falsified his income tax return for 1961 so as to gain exemption of P3,000.00.
Speaking of his wife, in this connection, the fact that petitioner did not take pains in finding out as to her whereabouts and well-being, further demonstrates lack of love and affection on his part, something not characteristic of a Filipino.
We need not go further to discuss the other errors assigned by the Solicitor General. The above defects on the part of the petitioner call for the dismissal of his application for naturalization.
In view hereof, the decision granting the petition is hereby reversed, with costs against the Petitioner-Appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. See Chua Pun v. Republic, G. R. No. L-16862, Dec. 22, 1961; Wang I. Fu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15819, Sept. 29, 1962; Nanikian Sehwani v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18219, Dec. 27, 1963; Uy Tian It v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18248, Dec. 27, 1963, and other cases on the subject.
