GR L 3921; (June, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3921; June 30, 1952
In the matter of the petition for naturalization of LAO CHIN KIENG alias QUIRINO LAO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Lao Chin Kieng alias Quirino Lao, born in Amoy, China in March 1899, arrived in the Philippines in June 1915 and continuously resided in Tubigon, Bohol. He is a high school graduate from San Carlos College in Cebu, speaks and writes English and Visayan, believes in Philippine constitutional principles, and is married to a Filipino citizen with whom he has eight children. He has been engaged in business since 1928, employing only Filipinos, was a member of a recognized guerrilla unit during the Japanese occupation, mingles with Filipinos, participates in community activities, and presented witnesses attesting to his good moral character and lack of disqualifications. After the hearing, the provincial fiscal opposed the petition, arguing the applicant failed to prove reciprocity between the Philippines and China. Before the decision, the fiscal moved to reopen the case to present testimony from Jesus T. Clarin, who alleged in an affidavit that the applicant, in 1947, criticized a proposed parity rights agreement, stating it amounted to “selling the Philippines to American capitalism” and that “Filipinos are dummies of the Americans,” and further claimed the applicant had communistic leanings. The trial court denied the motion to reopen and granted the petition for naturalization.
ISSUE
1. Whether the applicant possesses all the qualifications prescribed by the Revised Naturalization Law, particularly the ability to speak and write English or a principal Philippine language.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to reopen the case to present evidence allegedly showing the applicant’s communistic leanings.
RULING
1. Yes, the applicant possesses all qualifications. The Court held that the applicant’s ability to write English and Visayan could be inferred from his being a high school graduate and his testimony that he speaks those languages, which is a natural and logical deduction. His testimony also demonstrated a sufficient knowledge of Philippine political institutions.
2. No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that even if the applicant uttered the statements attributed to him, such remarks criticizing a specific government policy and expressing a nationalistic sentiment would not warrant the conclusion that he had communistic leanings or was antagonistic to the Philippine government and its ideals. The decree of naturalization was affirmed.