Title
IN RE: Lim Ham Yong vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-11362
Decision Date
May 27, 1959
Simeon Lim Ham Yong, born in the Philippines to Chinese parents, sought naturalization. Despite initial lack of lucrative employment, his later job and stockholding met requirements, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11362)

Factual Background

On May 5, 1953, Simeon Lim Ham Yong filed a petition for naturalization. Following a thorough trial, the lower court granted the petition. However, the Solicitor General appealed the decision, arguing that at the time of the filing, the petitioner was ineligible for naturalization due to his status as a student, which did not meet the qualifications for a naturalized citizen. The appellant also contended that the lower court erred by admitting evidence about the petitioner's employment, as there was no prior allegation of this in the petition.

Evidence Presented

The petitioner presented several key facts during the trial: he was born on January 6, 1930, in Cebu City to Chinese parents and had only left the Philippines once when he was four years old. He completed his elementary education in Leyte, high school at the University of San Carlos in Cebu, and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Mapúa Institute. At the time of the trial, he was employed at Building Craft Construction Company, earning a salary of PHP 200.00 a month. He was also a partner in the company at 5% capital ownership. Apart from his professional background, he was studying commerce at the same university, was single, and demonstrated proficiency in English, Cebuano, Visayan, and Tagalog. He professed his belief in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and had conducted himself well in his interactions with Filipinos, embodying a desire to assimilate into their culture.

Legal Analysis

The Solicitor General's objections were considered insufficient to reverse the lower court’s ruling. The appellant claimed that evidence regarding the petitioner’s employment should have been excluded from trial due to the lack of a related assertion in the original petition. However, the court found that the failure to contest the admissibility of this evidence during the trial effectively constituted a waiver of any objection. Moreover, even if the petitioner had not met the qualif

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.