Ong Tai Vs Republic

G.R. No.
L-19418 December 23, 1964
ONG TAI, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
De Leon & De Leon and Nicolas Benedicto, Jr. for petitioner-appellee.

Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of China having been born on August 6, 1931 in Lamoa, Amoy. He arrived
in Manila on board the ship "Hai Hing" in 1938. In 1941 he left for China and returned in 1948. On June 26, 1952,
he married Lu Choy Fa, a Chinese citizen, who bore him three children, namely: Ong Chui Man, born on
February 27, 1956; Ong Yu Ling, born on April 3, 1957; and Ong Chui Cheung, born on March 29, 1961, all in
Hongkong.
Petitioner is employed in Seng Hap Guan Grocery. In 1957, he reported an annual income of P3,200.00,
including bonus. In 1958, P3,600, in 1959, P3,600 and in 1960, P6,100.00.
On March 22, 1959, petitioner filed with the Office of the Solicitor General a declaration of intention to become a
citizen of the Philippines. On December 27, 1960, he filed the present petition for naturalization in the Court of
First Instance of Manila wherein he Stated that his present place of residence is 634 Carvajal St., Manila, and his
former residence was 1131 Sta. Elena St., Manila.
Petitioner is 30 years old. He speaks and writes English and Tagalog. He believes in the principles underlying our
Constitution. He has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines in relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he
lives. He has evinced a desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos. He is not
opposed to organized government and is not affiliated with any association upholding doctrines opposed to
organized government. He does not defend and teach the necessity of violence personal assault or assassination
for the success or predominance of men's ideas. He is not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of
polygamy, and he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. His petition is supported by
Numeriano F. Carbonell and Manuel T. dela Cruz who testified in his behalf.
The Court of First Instance of Manila, after trial, granted the petition for naturalization, whereupon the government
interposed the present appeal contending that said court erred in not finding that the petition is invalid and that
petitioner does not have a lucrative trade or occupation.
Petitioner stated in his petition that his present place of residence is No. 634 Carvajal Street, Manila, while his
former residence was No. 1131 Sta. Elena St., Manila. However, in his immigrant certificate of residence issued
to him by the Commissioner of Immigration it appears that he had been a resident of 509 Nueva St., Manila and,
on the witness stand he admitted that he had resided in the latter address from 1940 to 1949, which address he
omitted to mention in his petition for naturalization. This failure is fatal as it involves a violation of Section 7 of our
Revised Naturalization Law, which requires that a petition for naturalization shall set forth not only the present but
also the former places of residence of petitioner. The reason for such requirement is "to facilitate checking up on
the different activities of petitioner bearing on his petition for naturalization (especially as to his qualifications and
moral character) either by private individuals or government agencies, by indicating to them the localities or
places in which to make appropriate inquiries or investigations thereon" Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, August
31, 1961). Needless to say, by such omission, petitioner in effect falsified the truth, indicating lack of good moral
character on his part which disqualifies him from admission to Philippine citizenship. (Idem.; Go Bon The v.
Republic, L-16813; December 27, 1963; Dy Pek Long v. Republic, L-18758, May 30, 1964)
In a similar case wherein petitioner admitted having omitted to mention his former residence in his petition due to
sheer inadvertence but contended that such is not fatal because his present residence is No. 599 Asuncion St.,
Manila, and the one omitted was No. 512 of the street, which could not have affected materially the investigation
that the authorities may have undertaken in connection with his petition, this Court did not give importance to the
contention, it being a clear violation of our law. We said that it must be assumed that such non-compliance has
impaired the effectivity of the required official investigation unless proved otherwise by petitioner.1 There was no
such proof then, nor is there any in the present case. The argument of petitioner that the omission in question is
immaterial because the omitted residence is not far from the one reported cannot therefore be entertained.
Moreover, it appears that petitioner is employed in the Seng Hap Guan Grocery from which he derived an annual
income of P3,200 in 1957, P3,600 in 1958, P3,600 in 1959, and P6,100 in 1960, including bonus and allowances,
which shows that petitioner had an average yearly income of P4,125.00 only. Such income can hardly be
considered lucrative considering that petitioner has a family composed of a wife and three children, not to
mention the present high cost of living and the low purchasing power of our peso.2 The attempt made to prove
that petitioner has increased his income in 1962 and 1963 while this case was pending Appeal is of no moment,
not only because the increase represents certain commissions earned during said years which by their nature are
speculative, but also because the financial capacity of petitioner should be determined as of the time of the filing
of his petition for naturalization. This is another shortcoming which argues against petitioner's competence to
become a Filipino citizen.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against appellee.

Ong Tai Vs Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ong Tai Vs Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-19418 December 23, 1964

De Leon & De Leon and Nicolas Benedicto, Jr. for petitioner-appellee.

You might also like