G.R. No. L-20227 May 31, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. GO KEM LIM alias WILLIAM GO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Go Kem Lim, alias William Go, was born in the Philippines of Chinese parents on May 27, 1939. He filed a declaration of intention to apply for citizenship on March 24, 1960, and a petition for naturalization on May 3, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. At the hearing, petitioner and his two character witnesses, Ricardo Villanueva (the mayor) and Ramon Villanueva (the municipal secretary), both residents of Baliangao, testified. They stated they had known petitioner since his birth in Baliangao and attested to his good moral character, belief in Philippine constitutional principles, and qualifications for citizenship. Petitioner testified he resided in Baliangao since birth except while studying in Dumaguete and Cebu, worked as a storekeeper earning P300 monthly, spoke English and Cebu-Visayan, believed in the principles underlying the Constitution, mingled with Filipinos during fiestas, and was appointed treasurer of the Jose Rizal Centenary Celebration in his municipality. On cross-examination, petitioner stated he studied at Cebu Chinese High School, was not currently supporting his mother (though he claimed a P1,000 deduction for her support in his 1960 income tax return), and could not mention a single principle underlying the Constitution. When asked to mention Filipino customs, he replied, “We eat three times a day” and “During fiesta we celebrate.” The trial court granted his petition for naturalization, prompting the Republic to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Go Kem Lim has sufficiently proven his qualifications for naturalization, specifically: (1) his conduct in a proper and irreproachable manner; (2) his belief in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; (3) the competency of his character witnesses; and (4) his social mingling with Filipinos and sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization. The Court held that:
1. Petitioner did not make a false income tax return, as he explained he supported his mother in 1960, and he paid sufficient tax even if the deduction were disallowed. The non-presentation of his Alien Certificate of Registration was not fatal, as it was not demanded.
2. Petitioner failed to prove his belief in the principles underlying the Constitution. While he claimed such belief, he could not mention a single principle. His actions (e.g., helping his mother, participating in civic projects) were not conclusively attributable to a belief in constitutional principles.
3. Petitioner’s character witnesses were incompetent. Both witnesses were residents of Baliangao and could not attest to petitioner’s good conduct and irreproachable character during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, as petitioner spent a considerable period studying in Cebu.
4. Petitioner failed to prove genuine social mingling with Filipinos and a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs. His evidence consisted only of general statements and one specific instance (being appointed treasurer of a celebration). He studied at a Chinese school where Filipinos were not allowed to enroll, and his knowledge of Filipino customs was superficial (e.g., eating three times a day). Social mingling requires concrete instances of interaction throughout his residence, not temporary or sporadic intercourse for naturalization purposes.
The Court, scrutinizing the entire record as allowed in naturalization cases, found the evidence fatally defective. The petition was denied, with costs against petitioner.