SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15543             September 29, 1961

LAO LIAN SU alias LORENZO TING, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

Jose A. Uy for petitioner-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:chanrobles virtual law library

          Appeal from a decree of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, denying the application of petitioner-appellant Lao Lian Su alias Lorenzo Ting for admission to Philippine citizenship, because of applicant's failure to observe irreproachable conduct in his relations with constituted authorities during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          We see no merit in the appeal. In his sworn petition for naturalization as well as in his testimony, petitioner stated that he has only three children with his wife Chua Kim Tia, namely:

Besie Ting, born           11/25/39 chanrobles virtual law library

Esteban Ting, born           4/11/46chanrobles virtual law library

Betty Ting, born           8/16/51

          Yet in the verified income tax returns filed in his name and that of his wife for the years from 1951 to 1957, the contents of which he ratified under oath while on the witness stand, the spouses appear to have claimed exemption for a fourth child by the name of Ting Kock King, supposedly born on 10 October 1948. Of the inconsistency between the sworn statements, petitioner proferred no explanation whatsoever, although counsel for appellant insinuates in the brief that Ting Kock King could be an adopted child of the spouses; but the insinuation is totally devoid of proof, which the applicant was duty bound to submit to the Court. As the record now stands, the contradictory statements under oath can only lead to the conclusion either that the petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from him or that he has concealed the truth in his application. Either alternative would be sufficient to disqualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.