Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22192)
Facts:
Virgilio Lim Tan alias Boybac v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-22192, April 30, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.On November 11, 1962, petitioner Virgilio Lim Tan alias Boybac filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. After the statutorily required publication and a hearing, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on September 3, 1963 denying the petition. From that decision petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
The trial court denied naturalization principally because it found that petitioner had failed to satisfactorily prove (1) that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, (2) that he showed a sincere desire to embrace Philippine customs, traditions and ideals, (3) that he had a lucrative income, and (4) that he was morally irreproachable. The Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor, also pointed out that the petition omitted petitioner’s former places of residence, a requirement under Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law.
The record showed that, despite petitioner’s allegation of continuous residence in Toboso, Negros Occidental for twenty-two years, his own testimony established attendance at Silliman University in Dumaguete City (first year secondary) and at the University of San Carlos in Cebu City (first and second years college), indicating other places of residence not listed in the petition. The trial court found this omission fatal under precedent. The court also relied on inconsistent testimony concerning petitioner’s employment: petitioner denied kinship with his father’s partner, Tan Pong, but a character witness testified that Tan Pong was the petitioner’s uncle, which the trial court ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s failure to state his former places of residence in the petition for naturalization, as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, fatal to his application?
- Did petitioner’s false or inconsistent testimony regarding kinship with his father’s partner justify denying naturalization for...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)