GR L 10912; (October, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10912; October 31, 1958
In the matter of the petition of ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO, etc., to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO, etc., petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
The appellant, Anselmo Lim Hok Albano, alias Lim Hok, alias Lim Hok Anselmo Albano, filed a petition for naturalization, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After the expiration of the two-year probational period under Republic Act No. 530 , he filed a petition to take his oath and receive his naturalization certificate. The lower court denied this petition, based on the argument that the appellant had been using aliases in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 (the Anti-Alias Law). In his naturalization petition, he had alleged his full name as “Anselmo Lim Hok Albano, alias Lim Hok alias Lim Hok Anselmo Albano.” The appellant contended that any opposition based on his alleged illegal use of aliases should have been raised during the initial hearing before the naturalization was granted.
ISSUE
Whether the appellant’s use of aliases constitutes a violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 (the Anti-Alias Law), thereby disqualifying him from taking the oath of allegiance and receiving his certificate of naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order of denial. The Court held that the issue of the appellant’s qualifications could be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including after the grant of the petition and before the oath-taking. On the merits, the Court found that the appellant did not violate the Anti-Alias Law. The name “Lim Hok” was one by which he had been known since childhood. Although baptized as Anselmo Lim Hok, he had always added “Albano” (the surname of his godfather, Dionisio Albano) in his business and social dealings merely to emphasize his identity. There was no showing that this addition caused the confusion or prejudice that Commonwealth Act No. 142 seeks to prevent. The law is not violated when one uses a name by which he has been known since childhood. Therefore, the lower court was ordered to allow the appellant to take his oath of allegiance and to direct the issuance of the corresponding certificate of citizenship.