GR L 20952; (May, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHUA UAN alias PETER CHUA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHUA UAN alias PETER CHUA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On January 30, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental granted Chua Uan’s (alias Peter Chua) application for naturalization. The Provincial Fiscal appealed this decision (G.R. No. L-16923), contending the petitioner failed to meet the language requirement under Commonwealth Act No. 473. However, the Solicitor General later moved to withdraw the appeal, stating that after a careful study of the evidence, they found no ground to prosecute it, specifically noting the petitioner had demonstrated his competence regarding the language requirement. This motion was granted, making the January 30, 1960 decision final. On February 6, 1962, the petitioner filed a petition to take his oath of allegiance. After a hearing, the lower court issued an order on October 27, 1962, allowing him to take his oath. The Republic appealed this order, raising several objections to the petitioner’s qualifications for naturalization.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in granting Chua Uan’s petition to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen, specifically concerning: 1) his conduct not being proper and irreproachable due to his use of an alias; 2) his inability to speak and write a principal Philippine language; 3) his failure to prove indubitably that he had not left the Philippines since the decision granting his petition; and 4) the grant of his application for oath-taking in light of the foregoing.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order, finding no merit in the Government’s contentions.
1. On the issue of conduct and alias: The Court found the petitioner’s explanation satisfactory. He testified he never used nor intended to use the alias “Peter Chua,” always signing as “Chua Uan,” and that the alias appeared on his baptismal certificate due to an honest mistake by the priest without his knowledge or consent. The Government failed to disprove this testimony or prove he personally used the alias. The inclusion of the alias in his naturalization application was to conform with the baptismal certificate and avoid a charge of nondisclosure.
2. On the language requirement: The Court held this issue was settled by the finality of the January 30, 1960 decision, which was not appealed after the Solicitor General’s withdrawal. The Solicitor General’s motion for withdrawal explicitly stated that the evidence showed the petitioner’s competence on this point. Therefore, the Government could no longer contest it.
3. On continuous residence: The Court found the petitioner’s uncontradicted testimony under oath that he had never left the Philippines since the 1960 decision and had no criminal record to be sufficient proof. The Government made no attempt to show this testimony was untrue.
4. The fourth assignment of error, being a corollary of the first three, required no further discussion given the Court’s conclusions on those points. The order allowing the petitioner to take his oath was affirmed.