G.R. No. L-21452; April 29, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BENITO KO BOK TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. BENITO KO BOK, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Benito Ko Bok was born on December 20, 1925, in Ko Chu, China. He emigrated to the Philippines on or about March 12, 1937, and has resided in the Philippines since his arrival. He stated his residence as Market Street, Pasay City since 1945, and Taft Avenue since 1951. He is single, with no living parents or siblings. His annual income was P5,000 in 1957 and P12,000 in 1961. He declared his belief in Philippine constitutional principles, social mingling with Filipinos, and that he is not a polygamist, does not believe in violence for ideals, has no incurable contagious disease, and has no convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude. His petition was supported by affidavits and testimony from character witnesses Rodrigo P. Blanco and Ricardo Deocarega. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed his petition for naturalization on three grounds: (1) lack of required ability to speak and write English and Tagalog, (2) lack of sincerity and candor due to inconsistent statements about his residence, and (3) incompetence of one character witness (Deocarega) to testify on his reputation and conduct. The Solicitor General raised an additional objection: before securing a 1959 court order authorizing the change, petitioner had already used the name “Benito Ko Bok” in his 1956-1958 income tax returns, constituting unauthorized use of an alias in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal correctly dismissed Benito Ko Bok’s petition for naturalization.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The Court found no reason to disturb the lower court’s findings. Petitioner demonstrated deficiency in speaking and writing English and Tagalog, as evidenced by his written exercises and oral examination. Material inconsistencies in his statements regarding his residence (e.g., between his petition, testimony, and a sworn statement to the Philippine Constabulary) showed a lack of truthfulness and irreproachable conduct. The character witness Ricardo Deocarega was incompetent to testify on petitioner’s reputation and conduct, as he only met petitioner in 1950 and again in 1954, and had only casual meetings thereafter, thus lacking close observation during petitioner’s required period of residence. The other witness, Rodrigo Blanco, also only knew petitioner since 1950. Additionally, petitioner’s unauthorized use of the name “Benito Ko Bok” in his income tax returns prior to court authorization violated Commonwealth Act No. 142 and constituted misconduct in dealings with the Government. Therefore, the judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.