Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23116)
Facts:
The case involves Antonio Jao, also known as Jao Teck Chuan, who filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, under Case No. 753. The Ponente of the decision is Justice Makalintal, and the ruling was issued on January 24, 1968. Antonio, born on December 7, 1921, in Binondo, Manila, is a citizen of the Republic of Nationalist China, the son of Chinese parents, and was baptized under the name of Antonio Jao Teck Chuan in the Chinese Church in Binondo. His educational journey included primary education at De La Salle College in Manila, followed by secondary and collegiate studies at Far Eastern University, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Commerce.
In 1951, he married Susan Ng Siok Kun, also a Chinese citizen, and they have four children: Andrew, Alexander, Margaret, and Melanie. The family has been residing in Cebu since 1956, where Antonio is employed in various positions including salesman and solicitor, earning a total monthly sal
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23116)
Facts:
- Background of the Petitioner
- Antonio Jao, also known as Jao Teck Chuan, was born in Binondo, Manila on December 7, 1921.
- He was baptized in the Chinese Church of Binondo under the name Antonio Jao Teck Chuan, despite being known informally as Anthony Jao during his school years.
- His educational background includes:
- Primary studies at De La Salle College of Manila.
- Secondary and collegiate courses at the Far Eastern University where he earned a Bachelor of Science in Commerce.
- On April 28, 1951, he married Susan Ng Siok Kun, also a Chinese citizen, and they have four children (Andrew, Alexander, Margaret, and Melanie).
- The family later resided in Cebu from 1956, where the petitioner was gainfully employed.
- Employment and Financial Details
- In Cebu, petitioner was employed in three capacities:
- Salesman at Ignacio Leyson Brokerage.
- Solicitor in the office of Santiago Go, Commercial Broker.
- Employee at Lianga Bay Logging Company, Inc.
- His combined monthly salary amounted to P1,125.00.
- Evidence Concerning Character and Residence
- Two character witnesses, Honorato Suson and Facundo O. Perez, testified to his good moral character.
- They first became acquainted with petitioner in 1946 – when he was 25 years old.
- Their knowledge of him was limited mainly to his later years, especially after his transfer to Cebu in 1956.
- The period of acquaintance by the witnesses did not extend over the entire period required by law regarding residence in the Philippines.
- Publication of Petition Notice
- The petition for naturalization had its notice published in "La Prensa", a newspaper with general circulation in Cebu.
- There was a deficiency in that the newspaper did not have general circulation in areas where petitioner spent the majority of his early life, namely Manila and San Juan, Rizal.
- Publication in a widely circulated newspaper is mandated in order to inform the public and allow those with potential derogatory information to come forward.
- Objections Raised
- The Solicitor General objected on the ground that petitioner’s alternative name “Anthony Jao” was not his registered or official name.
- This objection was dismissed as the petitioner’s official baptismal name, Antonio Jao Teck Chuan, was consistently used in the petition and the published notice.
- A second, more substantial objection concerned:
- The evidence of petitioner’s good moral character, which was shown to cover only part of the required period.
- The inadequacy of the publication notice regarding its accessibility to the public in all relevant areas.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner has satisfactorily proved that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required for naturalization.
- The validity and sufficiency of character evidence over the entire period of residency, as mandated by law.
- Whether the notice of the petition for naturalization was properly published in media of general circulation in all geographic areas where the petitioner resided.
- The impact of the discrepancy in the name used in school records versus the official baptismal and petition name on the naturalization process.
- Whether the objections raised by the Solicitor General regarding both the character witnesses’ period of acquaintance and the inadequate publication of the petition notice are substantial enough to bar the petition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)