Title
IN RE: Jao King Yog vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-24950
Decision Date
Feb 10, 1968
Jao King Yog, a Chinese citizen, sought naturalization in the Philippines. The Supreme Court denied his petition, citing insufficient evidence of good moral character from his witnesses and inadequate income to support his family, as required by law.
naturalization
character witnesses
income
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24950)

Factual Background

The petitioner entered the Philippines on September 27, 1936. Thereafter, he maintained continuous residence in Cebu, except for a six-month sojourn in his birthplace with his mother and sisters, and brief visits to Hongkong in 1956 and 1957. His wife, whom he married in 1947, resided in Hongkong up to the time of the proceedings. The couple were childless.

The petitioner was reported to speak and write English and the Cebu-Visayan dialect. Employment evidence showed that since 1953 he had worked in the Sin Hing department store in Cebu City, with an annual salary of P3,600 from 1961 to 1963, increased to P4,800 in 1964. He also received free board and lodging, and a Christmas bonus of P1,200 in 1963. He further paid income taxes for the years 1961, 1962, and 1963.

As to his civic intent, on September 7, 1960 he officially declared his intention to become a Filipino citizen. He filed the naturalization petition on March 16, 1964. The trial court granted the petition on January 4, 1965.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Court of First Instance of Cebu granted the petition for naturalization on January 4, 1965. In doing so, it accepted the petitioner’s showing as sufficient to meet the statutory requirements under Commonwealth Act 473. The Government-oppositor took exception and appealed.

The Parties' Contentions

On appeal, the Republic of the Philippines contended that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 2 of Commonwealth Act 473, particularly the mandate that the applicant must be of good moral character and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of residence in the Philippines, in relations with both the constituted government and the community.

The appeal also rested on the petitioner’s economic situation, arguing that he did not demonstrate the kind of employment and income that would show the ability to support himself, and potentially his wife and any future children, if she were brought to the Philippines upon the grant of naturalization.

Supreme Court Ruling on the Merits

The Supreme Court held that the Government’s appeal was meritorious, and it reversed and set aside the judgment a quo dated January 4, 1965. It denied the petition for naturalization of Jao King Yog, with costs against him.

The Court ruled that it was unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised in the appeal once it found decisive grounds relating to the statutory requirements.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its reversal on two principal deficiencies under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act 473.

First, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s evidence of good moral character was insufficient. The Court noted the testimony of the character witnesses, Jose B. Delfin and Vicente Panique, who claimed that the petitioner was law-abiding, an asset to the department store where he worked, and a credit to the community. However, the Court held that the testimony failed to meet the requirement of proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of residence.

As to Delfin, the Court observed that he became acquainted with the petitioner only in 1951, which meant he could not credibly attest to the petitioner’s conduct for the earlier portions of his residence in Cebu. The Court further found Delfin’s testimony to be unreliable on a material point. When asked whether the petitioner had children with his wife, Delfin answered that the petitioner had a child, explaining that he “heard” such information from her. The Court emphasized that, in fact, the couple were childless, rendering Delfin’s testimony of good moral character and personal knowledge superficial and defective.

As to Panique, the Court recognized his claim that he had known the petitioner since 1937, but it found the basis of that knowledge inadequate. The Court held that his acquaintance was mainly tied to business dealings with the department store where the petitioner worked, selling products of Muller & Phipps, Ltd., of which Panique was an agent. Thus, the Court concluded that the witness’s claimed familiarity did not provide the thorough character assessment required by law across the entire period of residence.

Second, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not have a lucrative or gainful employment in the sense required to assure economic sufficiency. The Court computed that from 1961 to 1964 the petitioner earned P15,600, plus a Christmas bonus of P1,200 in 1963, yielding an average annual income of P3,900 or an average monthly income of P325. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner brought his wife to the Philippines—as he intended to do once naturalization was granted—he would need to support her and any children they might have in the future. The Court concluded that his income would be insufficient t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms