Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15858 July 31, 1962
DY LAM GO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, opponent-appellee.
N. V. Benedicto, Jr. for petitioner-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for opponent-appellee.
PADILLA, J.:
This is an appeal from a decree entered on 22 June 1959 by the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the appellant's petition to become a citizen of the Philippines on the sole ground that he has failed to prove that he had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living, as required by section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law A motion of reconsideration filed on 7 July 1959 was denied.
A restatement of the evidence presented by the appellant is unnecessary because the only ground relied upon by the trial court is the one adverted to above. Suffice it to say that the appellant has shown by his evidence that he has the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, as required and provided by law, to become a naturalized Filipino citizen, except the ground relied upon by the trial court already mentioned above.
It is true section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires only that the vouching or credible witnesses attest and testify that they know the applicant for naturalization to be a resident of the Philippines and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living, as required by section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, unless they had known him for a period longer than the one stated in section 7 referred to above. Besides, if the applicant is a native child of aliens or brought to this country when he was an infant, the period of infancy or childhood is not included in the phrase "during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines." because no one could attest and testify that the applicant had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner or otherwise during that period. Such period refers to that when a person becomes conscious and responsible for his acts and conduct in the community where he lives. Such conduct may be proved by other competent evidence not necessarily by the two vouching witnesses. Evidence that no derogatory police and court record exists against him would corroborate the testimony of the applicant as regards his proper and irreproachable conduct. Having failed to prove the requisite provide for in section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law, a reversal of the decree entered by the trial court denying the appellant's petition could not be justified.
The decree appealed from denying the appellant's petition for naturalization is affirmed, with costs against him.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
