Facts:

The case involves Ang Bun Phek, alias Kun Pue Guan, who was born on August 5, 1928, in Ang Chu, Amoy, China. He arrived in the Philippines in July 1937 on the vessel S/S TJISATANE, accompanied by his mother, Tan Cho Kim (also known as Luy Ni). His father, Ang Chay Hok, was a merchant and had passed away prior to the filing of the case. Ang Bun Phek has continuously resided in the Philippines for over ten years, and since 1938, he has also been using the alias Kun Pue Guan. As of the time of the dealing with his application for naturalization, he worked as a salesman for Hua Hing Trading Co. in Manila, earning a monthly salary of ₱250.00. Ang Bun Phek is married to Constancia Lee, a native of Manila, and together they have three daughters.

The applicant, together with his family, held alien certificates of registration, and he was proficient in English, Tagalog, and the Chinese language. He filed income tax returns for the years 1954, 1955, and 1956, and his tax obligations were

...

Facts:

Background of the Petitioner

• The petitioner, Ang Bun Phek, also known as Kun Pue Guan, is an applicant for naturalization in the Philippines.
• He was born on August 5, 1928, in Ang Chu, Amoy, China, and arrived in the Philippines in July 1937 aboard the S/S TJISATANE.
• Accompanied by his mother, Tan Cho Kim alias Luy Ni, he came as the son of the late merchant Ang Chay Hok.
• At the time of his arrival, he was a minor (around 9 years old).

Personal and Professional Information

• In 1938, the petitioner began using the alias name Kun Pue Guan.
• He is employed as a salesman at Hua Hing Trading Co., Manila, earning a monthly salary of P250.00.
• He is married to Constancia Lee, a Chinese born in Manila on August 29, 1930, and they have three daughters: Virginia Kun (born February 5, 1955), Vivian Lee Kun (born February 4, 1956), and Veronica L. Kun (born February 9, 1957).
• All family members possess valid alien certificates of registration.
• The petitioner is proficient in Chinese, English, and Tagalog, evidencing his assimilation to the local linguistic culture.

Evidence of Residence and Character

• The petitioner has continuously resided in the Philippines for at least ten years and has never left the country.
• He has fulfilled tax obligations by filing income tax returns for 1954, 1955, and 1956, with no outstanding internal revenue tax liability.
• Evidence presented to establish his good moral character includes testimonials regarding his unblemished record in his interactions with the authorities and the community.
• His minor infraction in 1947 (violation of an ordinance for placing a garbage can early on the sidewalk) is noted but did not undermine his character assessments.
• The petitioner demonstrated his commitment to the principles of the Philippine Constitution, expressed his loyalty to an organized government, and affirmed his non-affiliation with groups that promote violence or subversive doctrines.
• Additional assurances were provided regarding his non-involvement in polygamy, mental stability, and absence of incurable contagious diseases.

Proof of Lawful Entry and Continuous Residence

• The petitioner supported his application with multiple documents intended to establish his lawful entry for permanent residence as mandated by Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law:
• Immigration Certificate of Residence No. 3104, dated March 23, 1946.
• Certificate of Arrival, dated June 10, 1954.
• Alien Certificate of Registration, dated July 14, 1950.
• A certificate from the Bureau of Immigration indicating his entry in the 1941 Master List of registered aliens.
• Though his testimony regarding the issuance and subsequent loss of a Landing Certificate of Residence in 1937 was considered unreliable by the trial court, it was supplemented by the above documentary evidence.
• The petitioner's evidence was also compared favorably with similar cases (such as Maxwell Tong and Victoriano Yap Subieng) in which documentary evidence sufficed to establish lawful entry despite minor discrepancies.

Trial Court’s Findings and Reason for Denial

• The trial court acknowledged all factual details as presented and even agreed with the Solicitor General regarding the evidence.
• The primary reason for denying the naturalization application was the trial court’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish his lawful entry because:
• His testimony regarding the lost Landing Certificate of Residence was considered unreliable and doubtful.
• He did not present corroborative testimony from his mother, despite having the opportunity.
• Consequently, the trial court denied his petition on the strict ground of failing to meet the requirements of Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law regarding lawful entry.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner adequately established his lawful entry for permanent residence in the Philippines under the requirements specified in Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

• Examination of the documentary evidence submitted, including various certificates and the historical master list of aliens.
• Evaluation of the credibility of the petitioner’s oral testimony concerning his arrival and the circumstances surrounding the lost landing certificate.

Whether the evidence presented, when considered collectively, was sufficient to overcome the trial court’s reservations about the reliability of the petitioner’s testimony regarding his entry.

• Comparison with precedents such as Maxwell Tong vs. Republic of the Philippines and Victoriano Yap Subieng vs. Republic of the Philippines.
• Determination of the probative value of the official documents issued by competent authorities versus solely testimonial evidence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)