Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13347)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition of Keng Giok to be Admitted a Citizen of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-13347, August 31, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner-appellant Keng Giok sought naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473). The oppositor and appellee was the Republic of the Philippines. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila, which had denied petitioner’s petition for citizenship (Civil Case No. 30630).
The record shows petitioner was born in Chingkang, China, on September 5, 1921, and arrived in the Philippines in 1930. He returned once to China for two months but otherwise resided continuously in the Philippines and had lived in Manila for more than one year immediately before filing his petition. He filed a declaration of intention one year before his petition. Petitioner worked as manager of the Cosmopolitan Jewelry store and presented income tax returns showing gross incomes of P14,350 (1954), P9,054.50 (1955), and P8,687.50 (1956). He owned no real estate. He was married to Benita Giok Nan Hartigan Go and they had five children attending elementary school; petitioner presented evidence of payment of taxes, schooling, religious affiliation (Protestant), and statements of belief in constitutional principles and renunciation of allegiance to the Republic of China.
At the trial court hearing petitioner produced character witnesses and various documentary exhibits, including certificates of arrival (Exh. G), declaration of intention (Exh. E), income tax returns (Exhs. F, F-1, F-2), residence clearances, and school records for his children. The Court of First Instance denied the petition, holding that petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements of the Revised Naturalization Law (Com. Act No. 473): (1) he did not set forth his former places of residence as required by Section 7, and (2) he did not possess the qualification under Section 2 of owning real estate worth not less than P5,000 or having a known lucrative trade or profession — the trial court viewed his declining salary and family responsibilities as insufficient to qualify as “lucrative.” The trial court also noted discrepancies in residence certificates and concluded the omissions amounted to falsification and indicated lack of good moral character...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner comply with Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 requiring that the petition for naturalization set forth present and former places of residence?
- Did petitioner satisfy the Section 2 qualification of owning real estate worth not less than P5,000 or having a “known lucrative trade, profession or lawful calling”?
- Do omissions and discrepancies in petitioner’s documentary submissions amount to falsification or evidence of lack of good moral ch...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)