GR L 21079; (February, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21079 February 28, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP OF KOA HENG, also known as YAO BONG KENG, also known as FRANCISCO YAO BONG KENG. KAO HENG, also known as YAO BONG KENG, also known as FRANCISCO YAO BONG KENG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Koa Heng, a citizen of the Republic of China, entered the Philippines on February 13, 1934, and has resided in Angeles, Pampanga since 1943. On July 10, 1961, he filed a petition for naturalization, stating he had a wife and seven living children and was engaged in a bakery and retail business with an annual net income of more or less P6,000. Evidence showed his net income was P6,000 for 1960 and P11,287.86 for 1961, and that he registered five of his seven children as aliens with the Bureau of Immigration. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga granted his petition on July 19, 1962. The Republic appealed, contending fatal omissions in the petition, lack of lucrative income, reproachable conduct, and non-credible character witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner-appellee is qualified for naturalization as a Philippine citizen.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization. The Court found multiple fatal defects: (1) Petitioner’s failure to specify in his petition all his places of residence in the Philippines from 1934 to 1943, as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, is a serious flaw that facilitates background checks and is not cured by supplying the information during trial. (2) Petitioner’s net income of P6,000 per annum at the time of filing his petition was not lucrative for supporting a wife and seven children. (3) Petitioner’s failure to register at least one of his children as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration constitutes reproachable and improper conduct precluding naturalization. Given these defects, the Court found no need to discuss the other points raised. Costs were imposed on the petitioner-appellee.