G.R. No. L-31935. January 22, 1980.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BABY NG alias NG KONG DING TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. BABY NG alias NG KONG DING, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Baby Ng alias Ng Kong Ding filed a petition for naturalization. The Court of First Instance of Quezon granted his petition in a decision dated June 11, 1965. After more than two years, the petitioner moved for a second hearing to take his oath of allegiance pursuant to Republic Act No. 530 . At this hearing, he presented evidence and testified that he had not left the Philippines, had continuously engaged in a lawful business, and had conducted himself properly. He clarified details about his income, his children’s education in schools where Philippine history and government were taught, and his integration into Filipino culture.
The Republic opposed the oath-taking, filing a motion for reconsideration. It argued that the trial court’s order failed to make an explicit finding on all statutory requirements for the oath. The Republic also raised substantive grounds against the grant of citizenship, asserting that the petitioner lacked a lucrative income, that his children were not enrolled in prescribed schools, and that he had violated the Anti-Alias Law and the Retail Trade Nationalization Act ( Republic Act No. 1180 ).

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in allowing Baby Ng to take his oath of allegiance and become a naturalized Filipino citizen.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, ruling that the petitioner had satisfactorily established his right to naturalization. The Court addressed the Republic’s assignments of error. On the issue of lucrative income, the Court found the petitioner’s net income, derived from multiple businesses including a theater and a store, to be sufficient and not indicative of poverty, especially considering the lower cost of living in his municipality. Regarding his children’s education, the Court held that the schools they attended, which taught Philippine history and government, substantially complied with the legal requirement, as the law did not mandate exclusive enrollment in public schools.
Concerning the alleged violation of the Anti-Alias Law, the Court noted that the petitioner used “Baby Ng” and “Ng Kong Ding” interchangeably, with “Baby” being a common nickname and “Ng Kong Ding” being his official Chinese name. This did not constitute a willful use of an alias to conceal identity. Finally, on the alleged Retail Trade Act violation, the evidence showed the petitioner had operated his sari-sari store since 1951, before the law’s passage in 1954. He had subsequently secured the required permits from local authorities to continue his business legally, thus committing no violation. The Court concluded that the evidence strongly supported the petitioner’s qualifications and noted a contemporary policy of liberal attitude toward naturalization, making a strict application of past criteria inappropriate.