G.R. No. L-20287 - Tan vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20287)

Facts Material to the Controversy

The Court found that petitioner was born in the Philippines on April 7, 1928 of Chinese parents. His father was Tan Tian and his mother Lim Cho. At baptism, he was given the name Celestino Tan. When he was enrolled in the Philippine Chinese Republican School, he was enrolled under the name Celestino Guy, which he claimed was the surname of his ancestor. During his school days, he used Celestino Guy, and that name later appeared in his high school diploma from the Far Eastern University and in his certificate of enrollment issued by the University of Santo Tomas.

On July 18, 1954, petitioner married Angela Soriano, a Filipino woman, in a ceremony celebrated before the Iglesia Filipina Independiente. Out of that union, four children were born: Anthony (born April 13, 1955), Alexander (born May 26, 1956), Cesar (born May 13, 1957), and Rowenia (born October 23, 1959). The Court noted that Anthony S. Guy, the eldest, was enrolled in the Elementary Department of San Sebastian College at the time of the record.

Petitioner was also shown to be an insurance agent of the Manila Overseas Commercial. The decision recited his net income in his income tax returns for several years: P8,979.67 in 1958 (tax P196.00), P10,909.62 in 1959, P12,830.57 in 1960, and P11,906.37 in 1961.

Procedural History and Trial Court Result

Petitioner sought to become a Filipino citizen by filing a petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The petition was supported by the joint affidavit of Umberto T. Ancajas, Matwid L. Burbon, and Francisco G. de Guzman. The petition was granted by the trial court over the opposition of the Solicitor General, who alleged that petitioner had not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence. The Government appealed, resulting in review by the Supreme Court.

The Issue on Appeal

The core issue on appeal was whether petitioner’s conduct failed the statutory requirement of a proper and irreproachable manner, in light of his alleged use of an alias name without compliance with the law’s requirements for judicial authority to use an alias or to change one’s name. The opposition did not dispute petitioner’s Filipino birth or his income and tax payments. It focused on the legality and propriety of his name usage and its effect on the identity of petitioner and his children.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner contended that his true name was Celestino Tan, as shown in his birth certificate and his alien certificate of registration. He explained that while his parents enrolled him as Celestino Guy when he entered the Philippine Chinese Republican School, he continued using Celestino Guy through high school at the Far Eastern University and through his college studies at the University of Santo Tomas. Petitioner further asserted that “Guy” was the surname of his ancestor. He also claimed that his continuous use of “Guy” extended to his children, since he had caused their names to appear as Guy in their birth certificates. He maintained that his use of that name did not reflect an intention to conceal his identity but stemmed from familial naming.

The Solicitor General, and the Government on appeal, maintained that petitioner’s manner was improper because his continued use of “Guy” constituted a violation of the rules requiring prior judicial authority. The opposition argued that petitioner and his children used an alias name without obtaining the authority required by law. It pointed out that in 1953 petitioner had to obtain a certificate from the Bureau of Immigration stating that his other name was Celestino Guy. The decision recited that the certificate was issued at the request of counsel and for purposes of identification.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Conduct

The Court held that petitioner’s use of “Guy” was improper. It reasoned that petitioner’s true name was already established as Celestino Tan by his birth records and registration documents, yet petitioner continued using Celestino Guy in subsequent schooling. More importantly, the Court considered it improper that petitioner also placed the surname Guy in his children’s birth certificates, and that the children were registered with the Bureau of Immigration under the surname Guy.

The Court recognized that the initial enrollment under “Celestino Guy” for elementary education might be overlooked. However, it emphasized that petitioner’s continued use of “Guy” during high school and college created confusion regarding his true name. It noted that petitioner had to clarify the confusion in 1953 by securing the Bureau of Immigration certificate identifying “Celestino Guy” as an other name. In the Court’s view, the need for such clarification showed that petitioner’s use of “Guy” was not merely incidental but had legal consequences for identity documentation.

The Court then treated the use of “Guy” for petitioner and for his children as an alias that was used without authority.

Legal Basis: Commonwealth Act No. 142 and the Civil Code

The Court concluded that petitioner’s practice violated Commonwealth Act 142, which the decision stated prescribes that no alias name can be used without asking for authority from the court. The Court further relied on Article 376 of the Civil Code, which, as recited in the decision, provided that no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

Accordingly, the Court viewed petitioner’s continued use of “Guy” for himself and for his children as conduct inconsistent with the legal requirement for judicial authority when an alias name or name change is involved. It considered that failure sufficient to negate the statutory requirement that the applicant for citizenship show that he conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner throughout his period of residence.

Ruling on the Petition and Disposition

Finding merit in the Government’s contention, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision. It entered a new judgment dismissing the petition for naturalization. The Court assessed costs against appellee. The

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-20287)

The case involved an application by Celestino Tan alias Celestino L. Guy to become a Filipino citizen through a petition filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The Republic of the Philippines appealed after the petition was granted despite opposition by the Solicitor General.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Celestino Tan alias Celestino L. Guy acted as petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Manila and as petitioner and appellee on appeal.
The Republic of the Philippines acted as opposite and appellant and challenged the grant of citizenship.
The Solicitor General opposed the petition before the trial court on the ground that petitioner had not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of residence.
The trial court granted the petition over the opposition.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court’s decision could not stand and reversed it by dismissing the petition.

Key Factual Background

Petitioner was born in the Philippines on April 7, 1928 to Chinese parents, with the father identified as Tan Tian and the mother as Lim Cho.
Petitioner was baptized with the name Celestino Tan.
During elementary school at the Philippine Chinese Republican School, petitioner was enrolled as Celestino Guy.
Petitioner explained that Guy was the surname of his ancestor.
Petitioner used Celestino Guy throughout later schooling, and the name appeared in his high school diploma from the Far Eastern University and his certificate of enrollment issued by the University of Santo Tomas.
On July 18, 1954, petitioner married Angela Soriano, a Filipino woman, in a ceremony celebrated before the Iglesia Filipina Independiente.
Petitioner and Angela Soriano had four children: Anthony (born April 13, 1955), Alexander (born May 26, 1956), Cesar (born May 13, 1957), and Rowenia (born October 23, 1959).
Petitioner’s eldest child, Anthony S. Guy, was at the time of the decision enrolled in the Elementary Department of San Sebastian College.
Petitioner worked as an insurance agent for the Manila Overseas Commercial and reported income tax returns in multiple years, including P8,979.67 net income in 1958 and P10,909.62 in 1959, with corresponding tax payments reflected in the records.
The controversy centered on petitioner’s use of the name Guy as an alleged alias rather than his claimed true name Celestino Tan.

Grounds for Opposition

The Solicitor General alleged that petitioner had not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence.
The alleged basis for the lack of irreproachability was petitioner’s use of an alias name without complying with the requirements of law.
Petitioner’s true name was said to be Celestino Tan, supported by his birth certificate and alien certificate of registration.
Petitioner admitted that he used Celestino Guy during schooling, and he claimed that the surname Guy came from his ancestor.
The record showed that petitioner used Celestino Guy not only for himself but also placed Guy in the birth certificates of his children, and those children were also registered with the Bureau of Immigration under the surname Guy.
The Court treated the continuous use of Guy in high school and college as improper because it allegedly created confusion regarding petitioner’s true name.
The Court noted that in 1953 petitioner obtained a certificate from the Bur