G.R. No. L-9646, December 21, 1957
Lay Kock, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Lay Kock filed a petition for naturalization on July 27, 1954. At the hearing, he testified under oath that he had forwarded his declaration of intention to the Bureau of Justice “sometime in July 1953,” with a supporting money order dated July 2, 1953. The Solicitor General’s office issued a receipt for the filing fees dated August 5, 1953. The Republic opposed the petition on three grounds: (1) failure to file the declaration of intention at least one year before the petition; (2) lack of the requisite moral qualification and sincere disposition to adopt Filipino ways, citing that Lay Kock admitted he married his wife because she was his mother’s choice, left his wife in China to care for his mother, and had not brought his wife to the Philippines or sent her support since the last war; and (3) incompetence of his character witnesses, who allegedly did not know him since he began residing in the Philippines in 1923. Lay Kock explained his failure to locate or support his wife by stating that during a 1947 trip to China, he learned his mother had died and his wife had evacuated; despite efforts, he could not locate her and eventually lost hope of communication.

ISSUE

1. Whether Lay Kock complied with the one-year requirement for filing his declaration of intention prior to his petition.
2. Whether Lay Kock possesses the requisite moral qualification and sincere disposition to adopt Filipino customs.
3. Whether Lay Kock’s character witnesses were competent.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting naturalization.
1. On the first issue, the Court found the one-year requirement substantially complied with. The petitioner’s evidence indicated the declaration was filed “sometime in July 1953,” and the specific objection regarding a potential shortage of a few days was not raised in the trial court. Furthermore, the appellee’s assertion that the declaration was received on July 11, 1953, was not denied by the appellant in subsequent pleadings.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that the objections regarding moral qualification were without merit. The fact that his marriage was arranged by his mother does not indicate an unwillingness to adopt local customs, as similar practices exist among Filipinos. His failure to bring his wife to the Philippines or send support was reasonably explained by his inability to locate her after the war, despite genuine efforts.
3. On the third issue, the Court ruled the witnesses were competent. The law requires witnesses to know the petitioner as a resident for the period required by the Naturalization Act (ten or five years), not from the very beginning of his residence. Witnesses who knew him from 1925 and 1927 were competent. Knowledge of a petitioner’s conduct can be derived from records and reputation, not solely from personal observation from the moment of arrival.