Ang Bun Phek v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ang Bun Phek, also known as Kun Pue Guan, sought naturalization in the Philippines. He was born in China in 1928 and arrived in the Philippines in 1937 with his mother. He has resided continuously in the country since then, working as a salesman with a monthly salary of P250.00. He is married to Constancia Lee, a Chinese national born in Manila, and they have three daughters. The petitioner speaks and writes English and Tagalog, has filed income tax returns, and has no outstanding tax obligations. He claims to be of good moral character, with no criminal convictions except for a minor ordinance violation in 1947. He believes in the principles of the Philippine Constitution, is not opposed to organized government, and does not advocate violence. He is not a polygamist and is not suffering from any disqualifying diseases. He is a subject of Nationalist China, with which the Philippines is not at war, and Chinese law permits Filipinos to naturalize. Procedural History: The petitioner filed an application for naturalization, which was heard by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court denied the application, primarily on the grounds that the petitioner had not satisfactorily established his lawful entry for permanent residence in the Philippines, as required by Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 473). The court found the petitioner's testimony regarding his landing certificate being lost during the Japanese occupation unreliable and noted the absence of his mother to corroborate his claim of arrival in 1937. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court on appeal by the petitioner, Ang Bun Phek, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying his naturalization application. The petitioner argues that he has sufficiently established his lawful entry and permanent residence in the Philippines, citing various documentary evidence including an Immigration Certificate of Residence, a Certificate of Arrival, an Alien Certificate of Registration, and an entry in the Master List of registered aliens from 1941. The petitioner contends that these documents, supported by jurisprudence from similar cases like Maxwell Tong vs. Republic of the Philippines and Victoriano Yap Subieng vs. Republic of the Philippines, satisfy the legal requirements for proving lawful entry and residence. The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, appears to agree with the petitioner's assertion regarding lawful entry, as indicated in his brief.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner-appellant sufficiently established his lawful entry for permanent residence in the Philippines as required by Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473).
Ruling
The appealed decision is reversed. The application for naturalization should be granted. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner sufficiently established his lawful entry through documentary evidence. The Court emphasized that the Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) No. 3104, issued in 1946, and the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the 1941 Master List of registered aliens provided reliable proof of his status. Applying the ruling in Maxwell Tong v. Republic, the Court held that an ICR signed by immigration officials certifying a person was admitted as an immigrant is the best testimonial of their right to stay. Furthermore, the Court cited Victoriano Yap Subieng v. Republic, stating that official documents issued in due course by immigration authorities must be given due probative value unless their genuineness is assailed. The Court found the trial court's skepticism regarding the lost 1937 certificate to be misplaced because the existing official records, including the 1941 Master List, predated or accounted for the lost data. Finally, since the Solicitor General agreed that the documentary evidence was sufficient, there was no legal basis to deny the petition based on a lack of corroborating testimony from the petitioner's mother.
Main Doctrine
The presentation of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence, Certificate of Arrival, Alien Certificate of Registration, and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration that the applicant's name appears in the master list of registered aliens, sufficiently establishes lawful entry for permanent residence, satisfying the requirements of Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, even if the initial landing certificate was lost.