GR L 1563; (August, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1563; August 30, 1949
In the matter of the petition for naturalization of JOSE GO (alias JOSEPH GOTIANUY), petitioner-appellant, vs. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES and FELIPE FERNANDEZ, oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
Jose Go, born in Cebu City in 1914 to Chinese parents, petitioned for naturalization as a Filipino citizen under Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Revised Naturalization Law). He met the statutory qualifications regarding residence, education, income, property ownership, and belief in Philippine constitutional principles. The trial court denied his petition based on testimony from two political detainees (Pedro Gerona and Pedro Labra) who alleged that during the Japanese occupation, Go sold a motor and tires to the Japanese Navy and was associated with the Chinese Association of Cebu, which allegedly made donations to the Japanese. Go rebutted these claims with an alibi witness and a clearance from the CIC (Counter-Intelligence Corps). The trial court also found that Go lacked the qualification of having mingled socially with Filipinos and embracing their customs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying Jose Go’s petition for naturalization based on the grounds that he did not conduct himself properly during his residence and did not mingle socially with Filipinos.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and granted the petition for naturalization.
1. The testimony of the oppositors’ witnesses was deemed of doubtful credibility, as they were under prosecution for treason, and their claims were successfully rebutted by Go’s evidence. Even if the alleged transactions with the Japanese occurred, they were insufficient to disqualify Go, especially given his CIC clearance.
2. There was no factual basis for the finding that Go failed to mingle socially with Filipinos or embrace their customs, as Go testified without contradiction to his long residence and associations in the Philippines.
3. The trial court incorrectly asserted a discretionary power to deny naturalization even if all legal qualifications are met. The Court emphasized that naturalization is a right under the law when all requirements are satisfied; courts cannot adopt a policy contrary to the statute.
4. The requirement of reciprocal naturalization rights under Chinese law was satisfied, following precedent where a certified translation from the Chinese Consulate was deemed sufficient proof.
The Supreme Court ordered the issuance of the corresponding certificate of naturalization.
AI Generated by Armztrong.