Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 635:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14630. September 30, 1960.]

LY HONG alias PIO LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

Bausa, Ampil, Suarez & Manzano for Appellant.

First Asst. Solicitor General G. E. Torres and Solicitor I.C. Borromeo for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; GAMBLING AND ILLEGAL OPERATION OF FOREST CONCESSIONS AS GROUNDS FOR DENIAL; CONVICTION FOR GAMBLING; WHEN NOT NECESSARY. — Petitioner, having failed to deny, refute, or contradict the state witness’ testimony regarding his gambling activities and illegal operation of forest concessions owned by Filipinos in violation of our nationalization laws, the Court has no alternative except to dismiss his petition for naturalization. Petitioner’s conviction for gambling is not necessary when there is independent proof establishing his lack of qualifications.

2. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF; APPLICANT HAS BURDEN OF PROVING HE POSSESSES ALL QUALIFICATIONS AND NONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS; DOUBT RESOLVED AGAINST GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP. — The burden is on the applicant for naturalization to show that he satisfies all the qualifications and possesses none of the disqualifications provided by law; and if there is a doubt in the mind of the court, the same should be resolved against the grant of citizenship (3 C.J.S., Sec. 122, pp. 833-834).

3. APPEAL AND ERROR; QUESTIONS OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS REST ON TRIAL COURT. — Questions as to the credibility of witnesses rest primarily with the trial court, and unless the latter failed to take into account some material fact or circumstances in the case, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal (Tiu Bon Hi v. Republic, G.R. No. L-8730, November 19, 1956).


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan in Naturalization Case No. 23-A, dismissing the petition by Ly Hong alias Pio Lee, for admission to Philippine citizenship.

In his petition filed on August 12, 1955, Ly Hong averred that he is 46 years of age, having been born in China on January 18, 1909; that he came to the Philippines around the year 1923, having resided first in the City of Manila, thereafter in the municipality of Irosin, Sorsogon up to 1949, and from said year to the present in the municipality of Aparri, Cagayan; that during the whole period of his residence in the Philippines, he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner, both in his relations with his neighbors and with the duly constituted government; that he is married to one Salvacion Gerona, a Filipina, and a native of Irosin, Sorsogon, with whom he has four (4) children all born in this country, namely: Amelia, 10 years old; Lolita, 7 years; Edna, 5 years; and Evelyn, 2 years, all surnamed Ly; that he is the manager of the Redwood Company, in the municipality of Aparri, with a yearly salary of P7,200, plus commission; that he is a citizen of China, under whose laws, Filipinos may become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof; that he has resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of more than thirty (30) years, to wit, since 1923; that he has enrolled his children of school age at the Aparri Chinese Kete School, which institution is duly recognized by the Philippine Government; that he is able to read and write the English language and, in addition, Tagalog and the Bicol dialect; that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people; and that he has all the qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.

Being sufficient in form and substance, the petition was given due course, and the required publications were complied with.

On November 26, 1956, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cagayan, without filing formal opposition to the petition, forwarded to the court a letter of a citizen, Lauro Villados, dated November 8, 1956, addressed to the Solicitor General, opposing the petition of Ly Hong and that of one Ong Ang, on the ground that they have not intermingled socially with Filipinos or evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace our customs, traditions and ideals; that they have not been paying their employees in accordance with the Minimum Wage Law; that they frequent gambling dens and play prohibited games; and that their prime motive to become citizens is to acquire the right to exploit our natural resources, especially forest products in the exploitation of which they are actively engaged.

At the trial, which was commenced on August 26, 1958, the petitioner presented his evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate the allegations of his petition. After the petitioner had rested his case, the assistant provincial fiscal sought leave to present Lauro Villados to the witness stand, which the court granted after the fiscal’s manifestation that they were adopting the opposition of Villados as that of the government. Villados having testified, the trial was closed.

On September 1, 1958, the court rendered judgment dismissing Ly’s petition for naturalization. Said the court:ClubJuris

"While it may be true that the petitioner has shown that he is entitled to be naturalized Filipino citizen in view of the evidence he has presented, still the fact remains that the testimony of Lauro Villados that the petitioner has played the prohibited games of pikiu and paya and that the petition was filed in order that the petitioner can exploit the natural resources of the Philippines has not been denied, refuted or contradicted by the petitioner. Since the evidence of the government that the petitioner has played the prohibited games of pikiu and paya in a gambling club in Aparri has not been disproved, the Court must necessarily accept the same as true and accurate. The failure, therefore, of the petitioner to deny the testimony of Lauro Villados is fatal to his petition.

It having been shown that the petitioner has frequented a gambling club in Aparri for the last two years, the Court finds that he has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner such that the Court has no alternative except to dismiss his petition for naturalization.

Wherefore the Court dismisses the above entitled petition." clubjuris

The Solicitor General concurs with the above view of the trial court and argues against the reversal of the judgment as prayed for by Ly Hong in this appeal.

The government’s position and that of the court a quo should be upheld. Lauro Villados, state witness, categorically charged petitioner with having operated illegally forest concessions owned by Filipinos in violation of our nationalization laws, 1 and with having often indulged in gambling. Elaborating on the second charge, the witness testified that, on several occasions, he saw Ly play the Chinese games of pikiu and paya. (games of cards about two inches long and 1 1/2 centimeters wide) inside a gambling club located at the commercial center of the town and operated by a certain Chinese woman. Gambling, which is a national offense and penalized as a crime against public morals under Art. 195, et seq., of the Revised Penal Code, is not a minor transgression, as petitioner’s counsel would imply from his arguments, especially for one who intends one day to become a naturalized citizen. Indeed, in frequenting a known gambling den, petitioner himself has demonstrated that his conduct is not above reproach.

Petitioner’s theory that a criminal conviction for gambling is necessary in order that it may be considered a ground for denying his petition for naturalization is unacceptable. The denial of his petition, it is to be noted, did not proceed on account of Section 4 (d) of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which disqualifies persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude from being naturalized, but by virtue of Section 2 of the same Act, requiring, among other things, that the applicant "must be of good moral character . . . and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines," of which he has been shown to be deficient. The case of Daniel Ng Teng Lin v. Republic, 103 Phil., 484; 56 Off. Gaz. (14) 2952 wherein this Court ruled that the filing of criminal charges (physical injuries), without proof of conviction, is no disqualification for an accused to be naturalized, is inapplicable in this instance, since it is there apparent that, except for the fact that the petitioner therein was criminally charged, no independent evidence was introduced by the government why his petition for naturalization should be denied; so that the presumption that a person is presumed innocent unless the contrary is proved was squarely on point. Here, however, independent proof establishing petitioner’s lack of qualifications stands on record.

Lastly, petitioner urges that it was error for the lower court to have given credibility to the uncorroborated testimony of Lauro Villados. Petitioner, however, has not shown any sufficient reason why we should doubt the testimony of said witness, which, in the words of the trial court, "has not been denied, refuted or contradicted" by petitioner. Questions as to the credibility of witnesses, moreover, rest primarily with the trial court, and unless the latter failed to take into account some material fact or circumstance in the case, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal (Tiu Bon Hui v. Republic, G.R. No. L-8730, November 19, 1956).

Finally, we may well restate the general principle that the burden is on the applicant for naturalization to show that he satisfies all the qualifications and possesses none of the disqualifications provided by law; and if there is a doubt in the mind of the court, the same should be resolved against the grant of citizenship (see 3 C.J.S., sec. 122, pp. 833-834).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, affirmed. Costs against the petitioner Sy Hong.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See Sec. 1, Article XIII, Constitution of the Philippines; Sec. 1838, Revised Administrative Code; Act No. 3674.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



September-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN FRIVALDO

    109 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO

    109 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ETC.

    109 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F. GONZALES

    109 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN

    109 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 - DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE COJUANGCO

    109 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 462

  • G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J. ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    109 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J. RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 514

  • G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 - ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

    109 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 542

  • G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B. VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 571

  • G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

    109 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

    109 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

    109 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

    109 Phil 598

  • G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    109 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

    109 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

    109 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

    109 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

    109 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO. INC.

    109 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    109 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

    109 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE: CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

    109 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

    109 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

    109 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

    109 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 723

  • G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 740