Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 328:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14184. August 31, 1960.]

In the matter of the petition for admission as citizen of the Philippines. PABLO UY YAO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor E. D. Ignacio for Appellant.

Ricardo E. Reyes for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; AFFIDAVITS OF CHARACTER WITNESSES; OMISSION IN AFFIDAVITS RECTIFIED AT THE HEARING AND BY AMENDMENT. — Where the supporting affidavits of petitioner’s character witnesses do not contain the statement that they know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the required period of time, but said witnesses tested at the hearing that they are both townmates of the petitioner and that they personally know him to be a resident of the Philippines for more than the number of years required of him for residence, and said witnesses executed amended affidavits attached to the petition, requirements of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, are considered to have been substantially complied with.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN NOTICE; PURPOSE IN REQUIRING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE. — An amendment of the affidavits of character witnesses does not call for a republication of the notice of the petition for naturalization, if what is contained in the amendment does not in any way alter the form or substance of the notice which has already been published. The law does not require the contents of the affidavits of a petitioner’s character witnesses to be included in the notice. The purpose of the law in requiring publication of the notice, is to inform those officers and the public in general of the filing of such petition in order that the public officers and private citizens supposed to be acquainted with the petitioner may furnished the proper authorities with any information or evidence as there may be against the petitioner. That purpose is not defeated by the non-inclusion of the contents of the affidavits in the publication.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DETAILS NOT REQUIRED IN THE AFFIDAVITS. — The law does not require the affidavits of character witnesses to contain statements to the effect that the affiants know the petitioner to be a person who adheres to or believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, that he is disposed to the good order and happiness of the country, that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their ideals and traditions and other similar details.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


This is an appeal by the Government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting Pablo Uy Yao’s petition for naturalization.

Petitioner’s evidence shows that he was born on October 10, 1925, of Chinese parents, at Rosales, Pangasinan, and that he never left the Philippines. He is married to Chua Lay, also a Chinese subject, their marriage having been solemnized at the United Church of Manila on May 27, 1956 and from said marriage he has one child named Victoria Chua Yao, born on August 21, 1957.

Petitioner speaks, reads and writes English and Tagalog and has some knowledge of other Philippine dialects such as Ilocano, Pampango and Pangasinan. He took his elementary schooling at the public school at Rosales, Pangasinan, and finished his high school at the Cosmopolitan College in Manila. He also studied at the Far Eastern University and on November 2, 1952 he graduated therefrom with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Immediately after his graduation, he found employment at the Atkins, Kroll & Co., Inc. at a monthly salary of P350.00 plus commission and bonus. Later, he transferred to the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory as promotional salesman with a salary of P400.00 a month. He believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the period of his residence in this country in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. He has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their customs, traditions and ideals.

Born in the Philippines and having received his elementary, secondary and collegiate education in schools duly recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, he did not have to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines.

After going over the record, we find that the evidence justifies the conclusion of the trial court that petitioner possesses all the qualifications for Philippine citizenship and is not among those disqualified under section 10 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

The Solicitor-General, however, claims that the petition for naturalization should not have been entertained, the same being void in that the affidavits of the two character witnesses attached to the petition were deficient because they failed to state that the affiants know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by law.

Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires that the petition 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 and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of the Act." It is true that the supporting affidavits of petitioner’s character witnesses do not contain the statement that they know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the required period of time. Said witnesses, however, had testified at the hearing that they are both townmates of the petitioner and that they personally know him to be a resident of the Philippines for more than the number of years required of him for residence, which, in this case, is only five years, the petitioner having been born in this country (Sec. 3, Com. Act No. 473, as amended). Thus, the first witness, Mario Gonzales, testified, in effect, that he had known the petitioner for the past eighteen years to be a resident in this country; and the second, Amando Dominguez, declared that he had known him to be such a resident for the past thirty years. Aside from their testimony on this regard, these witnesses also executed amended affidavits rectifying the omission in their original affidavits attached to the petition.

We do not agree with the Solicitor-General that the amendment of the affidavits calls for a republication of the notice of the petition for naturalization, for what is contained in the amendment did not in any way alter the form or substance of the notice which had already been published. The law only requires that such notice must set forth "the name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition." (See sec. 9, Com. Act No. 473, as amended.) Note that the contents of the affidavits of petitioner’s character witnesses are not required to be included in the notice. Anyway, the purpose of the law in requiring publication of the notice is to inform those officers and the public in general of the filing of such petition in order that the public officers and private citizens supposed to be acquainted with the petitioner may furnish the Solicitor-General or the provincial fiscal with such necessary information and evidence as there may be against the petitioner (Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines v. Alfonso Felix, Judge of the CFI of Manila and Teodoro Lim, 77 Phil., 1012; 44 Off. Gaz. [5] 1480). Certainly, that purpose is not defeated by the non- inclusion of the contents of the affidavits in the publication. In the circumstances, we hold that the requirements of the law have been sufficiently complied with.

As to the contention of the Solicitor-General that the affidavits should also contain statements to the effect that the affiants know the petitioner to be a person who adheres to or believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, that he is disposed to the good order and happiness of the country, that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their ideals and traditions, suffice it to say that the law (sec. 7) as above-quoted does not require such details in the affidavits.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court granting Philippine citizenship to Pedro Uy Yao is hereby affirmed. With costs de oficio.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390