Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16184)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition of Que Choc Gui, G.R. No. L-16184, September 30, 1961, Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner-appellee was Que Choc Gui; the oppositor-appellant was the Republic of the Philippines.Que Choc Gui was born in the Philippines on March 4, 1937, of Chinese parents and had continuously resided in the Philippines since birth. He completed his primary education at the Quiapo Anglo-Chinese School and his secondary education at Far Eastern University. He filed an application for naturalization under the Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473). The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the petition for naturalization.
The Republic of the Philippines appealed the CFI’s grant to the Supreme Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that petitioner satisfied statutory qualifications and that he had no disqualifications. The Government specifically attacked the adequacy of the testimony of the two affiants whose sworn statements accompanied the petition, and the sufficiency of petitioner’s claimed occupation and income (P150 monthly as a salesman in his father’s store since June 1, 1958).
On appeal the Supreme Court examined whether the attesting affiants had proved, by their live testimony, the specific matters required by law (including personal knowledge of petitioner’s residence, reputation, moral character, and acceptance of Filipino constitutional principles and customs), and whether petitioner’s alleged income am...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioner satisfy the statutory requirement that the affidavits of at least two credible persons be supported and confirmed by their live testimony?
- Did petitioner prove, through competent testimony, that he was not disqualified under the Naturalization Law—specifically that he believed in the principles of the Constitution and had embraced Filipino customs and ideals?
- Was petitioner’s claimed monthly income of P150 from employment in his father’s business sufficient to establish the statutory req...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)