G.R. No. L-23181 October 24, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP TAN SEN alias CAYETANO TAN alias CAYETANO TAN PAO HU alias TAN PAO HU, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellee Tan Sen, a native of China, arrived in the Philippines in 1931 and had not left since. He filed a petition for naturalization on August 9, 1961. He was married to a Chinese citizen and had three children. He resided in Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental, and was engaged in buying and selling copra, claiming an average annual net income of more than P4,000. He testified in English and demonstrated knowledge of the Visayan dialect. Two witnesses vouched for his good moral character. The Solicitor General appealed the lower court’s decision granting citizenship, raising issues of non-compliance with publication requirements, lack of lucrative income, and improper conduct due to the use of aliases without judicial authority.

ISSUE

1. Whether the publication of the petition in the newspaper “Nueva Era” complied with the legal requirement of being a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Misamis Occidental.
2. Whether the petitioner possessed a lucrative income.
3. Whether the petitioner conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner, considering his use of multiple aliases without judicial authority.

RULING

1. No. The publication did not comply with the law. The only evidence was an affidavit from the publisher stating “Nueva Era” was of general circulation in the Philippines, which was insufficient. Positive evidence was required to prove it was of general circulation specifically in Misamis Occidental. The Court cited Tan Ten Koc vs. Republic, noting that publication in a Spanish-language newspaper, without proof of local circulation, failed to serve the law’s objective of informing the local public and officers.
2. No. The petitioner’s income was not considered stable and lucrative. His 1961 tax return showed a net income of P3,037.44. His income for 1962 suddenly increased to over P10,000, plus a bonus. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that this drastic increase raised suspicion that it was intended to cure a deficiency for the naturalization requirement.
3. No. The petitioner’s use of aliases without judicial authority violated Commonwealth Act No. 142 (the Anti-Alias Law) and demonstrated a failure to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner. He admitted to using three aliases (“Cayetano Tan”, “Cayetano Tan Pao Hu”, and “Tan Pao Hu”), and different names appeared on his marriage and his children’s birth certificates. This violation justified the denial of his application, following precedents such as Ong Hock Lian vs. Republic and others.
The judgment granting citizenship was REVERSED and the petition was DENIED.