Uy Ching Ho v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Uy Ching Ho, born in Amoy, China in 1914, arrived in the Philippines on February 26, 1926. He resided in Valencia, Negros Oriental until January 1929, and thereafter in Dumaguete City. He completed elementary and first year high school in the Philippines. He married Howa Lu in 1950 and has five children, all born in Dumaguete. His children of school age attend the Dumaguete Chinese School. Uy Ching Ho has been a merchant since 1950 and presented income statements for 1958, 1959, and 1960. He claims to have conducted himself properly, believing in the Philippine Constitution, not being a polygamist, and not suffering from contagious diseases. He is a member of the Filipino-Chinese Catholic Association and mingles socially with Filipinos. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental granted Uy Ching Ho's petition for naturalization, subject to the two-year limitation. The government appealed this decision. The Petition: Uy Ching Ho sought to become a Filipino citizen.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner has proven that he conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period of residence in the Philippines. Whether the petitioner has a lucrative occupation within the meaning of the law. Whether the petitioner has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos.
Ruling
The decision of the court a quo is reversed. Costs against the appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish, by competent evidence, that he conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period of residence in the Philippines. The two character witnesses, Ligorio Luzada and Eleuterio Katada, both testified that they only came to know the petitioner since 1940. However, the evidence showed that the petitioner arrived in the Philippines on February 26, 1926, and resided there continuously. This creates a significant 14-year gap (from 1926 to 1940) during which no testimony was presented regarding the petitioner's good repute and behavior. Citing Chua Pun v. Republic, the Court reiterated that the law requires proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of residence, and the uncorroborated assertions of the applicant himself are insufficient to establish this vital fact. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the petitioner lacked sufficient proof of a lucrative occupation within the meaning of the law. The petitioner had a wife and five children, all minors and dependent upon him. His reported incomes for 1958 (P4,659.88), 1959 (P6,971.27), and 1960 (P7,799.34) were deemed insufficient to constitute a lucrative occupation, especially considering his dependents and the prevailing high cost of living and low value of currency. The Court referenced several precedents, including Koa Gui v. Republic, Tan v. Republic, Go Bon The v. Republic, and Keng Giok v. Republic, where similar or even higher incomes were found inadequate for applicants with families of similar sizes. The Court emphasized its commitment to these precedents, stating it was not in a position to set them aside. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs and traditions. A crucial factor was that his four school-age children were enrolled in the Dumaguete Chinese School, an institution where most students were Chinese or foreigners, despite it being government-recognized. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner truly desired to assimilate, he could have enrolled his children in a school owned or run by Filipino citizens. This choice argued against his alleged sincere desire to mingle socially with Filipinos and embrace their customs, reiterating the principle from Tochip v. Republic that Philippine citizenship is a privilege accorded only to one who evinces a true and sincere desire to embrace such citizenship, a requirement the petitioner fell short of.
Main Doctrine
The requirement of proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of residence in the Philippines for naturalization applicants must be clearly established and cannot be left to conjecture. A significant gap in the testimony of character witnesses regarding the applicant's conduct during a substantial portion of their residence is fatal to the application.