EN
BANC
IN THE
MATTER OF
THE PETITION OF CHUA TIONG CHIA
TO BE ADMITTED AS
CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.chanrobles virtual law library
CHUA TIONG CHIA,
Petitioner-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-5029
May
22,
1953
-versus-
REPUBLIC
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Oppositor-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
BENGZON,
J :
The Office of the Solicitor-General
challenges in this appeal the correctness of the Decision of the Manila
court of first instance approving the naturalization of Chua Tiong
Chia.
It discusses three main grounds of opposition. Firstly, because it
appears
that Chua only filed his income tax returns for the years 1945, 1946
and
1947 in the year 1951 after he was required during the hearing of his
application
to exhibit said income tax returns and the corresponding receipts of
payment.
On this point, We
believe
it is quite probable that as this objection was not pressed in the
Court
below,[1]
the petitioner did not care to explain the circumstances giving rise to
such belated payment. Some valid reasons must have existed for the
Bureau
of Internal Revenue to permit a compromise, as it did. And after
accepting
such compromise, it does not seem equitable for the Government to place
the taxpayer at a further disadvantage.
Second ground of
objection
is the mistake committed by the petitioner during the trial concerning
the dates of his marriage to Chua Kim and of the birth of their
daughter
Vicenta Sia Chua. However, the applicant explained his error saying he
was confused in computing dates from the Chinese to the Gregorian
calendar.
Persons not accustomed to court proceedings sometimes through sheer
nervousness
get their dates twisted. Anyway the inaccuracies were immaterial, there
being no doubt that this applicant is the husband and the father of
Chua
Kim and Vicenta, respectively.
The third and last
objection is based on Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law [Com.
Act 473] requiring a petition for naturalization to be supported by the
affidavits of two credible witnesses who personally know the petitioner
to be a resident of the Philippines "for the period of time" specified
by the same law. Now, "in the case at bar" argues the
Republic-appellant
"the applicant Chua Tiong Chia, not having been born in this country
and
not having filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen of
the
Philippines one year prior to the filing of his present petition for
naturalization,
the length of residence in this country required of him by law before
he
may be granted Philippine citizenship, is at least 30 years [Section 6,
Revised Naturalization Law]. However, the witnesses Vicente de la Cruz
and Toribio Angeles whom the petitioner presented in support of his
petition
for naturalization have known him only since 1935 and 1937
respectively,
[pp. 8-11, Rec. on Appeal; pp. 2, 9, t. s. n., Cruz]. Accordingly, said
witnesses could not in truth attest, as required by law, that they
personally
know the herein petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for a
continuous
period of 30 years or more."
Section 7 above
mentioned
provides in part:
"The petition must
be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and 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 this 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 this Act."
The period of residence
"required by this Act" has obvious reference to Sections 2 and 3 of the
same Act fixing ten and five years according to the circumstances
therein
stated.[2]
The 30-year period fixed in Section 6 applies only to applicant's
exemption
from the duty to declare his intention in advance of his application.
And
there is no statute providing that every applicant for naturalization
must
prove his 30-year residence.
The record shows the
supporting witnesses Vicente de la Cruz and Toribio Angeles swore to
having
known Chua Tiong Chia for more than ten years [since 1935 and 1937;
hearing
in 1951]. Hence, the requirement as to personal acquaintance of the
witnesses
with the applicant has been amply satisfied.
Wherefore, none of
the grounds of opposition is meritorious.
On the other hand,
the appealed Decision of the Hon. Alejandro J. Panlilio describes in
detail
all pertinent data concerning the personal qualifications of this
applicant
for naturalization. No need to repeat them here. Enough to say, they
demonstrate
that he deserves admission to Philippine citizenship.
Paras, C.J.,
Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and
Labrador,
JJ., concur.
_____________________
Endnotes:[1]
See the written opposition dated July 9, 1951.
[2]
Cu vs. Republic, 89 Phil. 473. |