GR L 22077; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22077. February 18, 1967.
ALFREDO K. TAN, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Alfredo K. Tan, a single Chinese citizen born in Butuan City on November 28, 1938, filed a petition for naturalization on January 3, 1962. The petition was supported by affidavits from character witnesses Jose Mondejar and Restituto Sintos. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Agusan granted the petition on June 28, 1963, overruling the opposition of the City Attorney. The Republic appealed, raising several objections.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in granting Alfredo K. Tan’s petition for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the application for naturalization. The Court found the government’s objections to be supported by the record:
1. The character witnesses were not credible. Witness Jose Mondejar was a foreman at the New Asia Lumber Company, where petitioner worked and petitioner’s father was the cashier, suggesting possible influence. Witness Restituto Sintos gave conflicting testimony about how long he had known the petitioner. Furthermore, neither witness could credibly testify about the petitioner’s conduct during the seven years he studied in Manila, as they were not shown to have been there during that period.
2. The petition was invalid for failing to disclose that the petitioner had resided in Manila, in addition to Butuan, in violation of Section 7 of the Naturalization Law.
3. The petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish his birth in the Philippines. The copy of the civil registry entry was not properly certified, and his parents did not testify. He also failed to provide competent proof of his lawful entry for permanent residence.
4. The petitioner failed to establish possession of a lucrative income. His claim of a P300 monthly salary plus an annual bonus was insufficient, as a bonus is not considered stable earnings. An increase in his salary to P500 monthly after the filing of the application could not be considered. His claim of owning a house was not supported by a deed of sale, and a tax assessment is not proof of ownership.