G.R. No. L-23406 August 31, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF O KU PHUAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. O KU PHUAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner O Ku Phuan filed an application for naturalization. On September 6, 1961, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision granting his application. On November 22, 1963, petitioner moved to set a date for the reception of evidence under Republic Act No. 530 as a condition for taking his oath of allegiance. Before he could complete his presentation of evidence, the Solicitor General, on April 7, 1964, objected to the motion and urged dismissal of the petition on specified grounds, filing a supplemental opposition on June 16, 1964. Despite this, the lower court issued an order on July 6, 1964, authorizing petitioner to take his oath. The Solicitor General appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in authorizing petitioner O Ku Phuan to take his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The appeal was well-taken on the following grounds:
1. Lack of Lucrative Occupation: Petitioner’s gross incomes from 1957 to 1962 (ranging from P3,212.55 to P4,225.75) were insufficient for a family with a wife and four children, some of school age. His 1963 income included irregular commissions and scholarships for his children, which should not be considered. Qualifications must be determined as of the filing of the application (October 29, 1959), and his lack of property qualification at that time could not be cured by a subsequent increase in income.
2. Failure to State All Former Places of Residence: Petitioner’s petition mentioned only one former residence (1040 O’Donnell, Sta. Cruz, Manila). The record showed he had resided in Davao (1936-1946), No. 788 Juan Luna, Tondo, Manila (1946-1948), and 2nd Avenue, Grace Park, Caloocan City (1948-1949). This omission affects the court’s jurisdiction as it defeats the purpose of the publication requirement and deprives the government of the opportunity for a thorough investigation.
3. Improper Conduct and Use of Alias: Petitioner used the alias “O Tiong Kiat” without prior judicial authority, in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Anti-Alias Law). He used this alias in his declaration of intention and in securing clearances. The unlawful use of an alias warrants denial of the petition.
4. Defective Character Witnesses: Petitioner’s character witnesses, Pedro G. Sta. Cruz and Jose D. Caballes, did not meet the legal requirements. They could not attest to his good behavior during his entire period of residence in the Philippines (since 1936), as they only knew him from 1949 and 1948, respectively. Furthermore, they were not shown to be “credible persons” as required by law, meaning persons of good standing and reputation in the community who can vouch for the applicant’s worthiness.
The Court rejected the trial judge’s view that matters covered by the initial decision could not be revisited during the oath-taking proceedings, noting that naturalization petitions are not ordinary actions and the statutory process implies that findings may be re-examined in subsequent proceedings.