Title
Lim Yeo vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-22315
Decision Date
May 31, 1971
The Supreme Court denies Lim Yeo's naturalization petition due to insufficient credible character witnesses, despite his temporary residence for study and gainful employment in Manila.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22315)

Facts:

  • On May 16, 1960, Lucio Lim Yeo filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga.
  • His petition included affidavits from character witnesses Leon Uro and Marciano Montojo.
  • The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition on June 14, 1961, citing Yeo's lack of lucrative employment.
  • The trial court ruled on September 27, 1962, declaring Yeo eligible for naturalization, with a two-year waiting period for finality.
  • The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision.
  • Yeo was a citizen of the Republic of China, born on October 17, 1939, in Zamboanga del Sur, and had lived in the Philippines continuously.
  • He worked as a General Clerk at State Glass Supply, earning P3,000.00 annually, and had a part-time job at Jabo Trading, earning an additional P2,600.00.
  • Yeo filed income tax returns for 1960 and 1961 and paid the corresponding taxes.
  • He was a fourth-year engineering student at Mapua Institute of Technology and was proficient in Chavacano and English.
  • Character witnesses testified to his good moral character and social integration, but the Solicitor General raised concerns about jurisdiction, employment nature, witness credibility, and the naturalization grant.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in assuming jurisdiction over the case.
  • The Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding that the petitioner had lucrative employment.
  • The Court concluded that the character witnesses were not credible....(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court reasoned that Yeo had resided in Zamboanga, as his temporary stay in Manila for education did not equate to abandoning his residence.
  • The publication of the petition and notice of hearing was deemed sufficient, as i...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.