EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15858; July 30, 1962

DY LAM GO, petitioner-appellant,

vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, opponent-appellee.

N. V. Benedicto, Jr. for petitioner-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for opponent-appellee.

R E S O L U T I O N

PADILLA, J.:

A motion for reconsideration has been filed by the appellant praying that the judgment rendered in this case on appeal be set aside and another be entered granting his petition to become a Filipino citizen by naturalization, on the ground that the finding of the trial court that he failed to prove that he had “conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living” is erroneous, because aside from his testimony on the point he presented certificates by the Manila Police Department to the effect that he did not have record in that department (Exhibit M); by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, that no case had been filed against him (Exhibit M-1); by the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Manila, that there is no criminal or civil case against him (Exhibit M-2); by the Deportation Board, that neither had he been the subject of deportation proceedings, nor had a pending case, before it (Exhibit M-3); by the Bureau of Immigration, that no derogatory information exists against him (Exhibit M-4); by the Land Registration Commission, that no real property appears to be originally registered in his name (Exhibit M-5); and by the National Bureau of Investigation, that he has no derogatory record in that Bureau (Exhibit M-6), which according to him, are sufficient evidence to establish the requirement of section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended.

The review on appeal of the case was confined to the ground relied upon by the trial court and to the errors claimed to have been committed by said court. In passing upon the motion for reconsideration a review of the whole record has been made and it appears that the appellant is a salesman of the Acme Utensil Factory and has an average annual income of P3,000 (pp. 33, 60-61, 77-80, t.s.n.; Exhibit P, P-1 and P-2); that he is married to Perpetua Quieng, a native of San Juan, Batangas (pp. 30-37, t.s.n.) but a Chinese citizen (p. 38, t.s.n.); that she bore him four children, namely, Susan, Robert, Thomas and Rosie, all born in Manila (pp. 39-42, t.s.n.).

Granting that the trial court erred in construing section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, as requiring the two attesting or vouching witnesses to testify to his good and proper conduct and behavior during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living, for the reason that such fact may be proved by other competent and admissible evidence, still the appellant cannot become a naturalized Filipino citizen, because his annual income or salary as salesman is not lucrative within the meaning of section 2, paragraph 4, of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by Republic Act No. 530, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law.¹

Upon this last ground the petition for naturalization by the appellant is denied. The motion for reconsideration is also denied.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

¹ Koa Gui vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L13717, 31 July 1962 and Keng Giok vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-13347, 31 August 1961.

Batas Pinas