Co vs. Republic of the Philippines

Naturalization laws are strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant, and an applicant must affirmatively establish compliance with all statutory qualifications, including belief in the principles underlying the Constitution and proper and irreproachable conduct in relations with the government and community. A general claim of belief in the laws or in democracy does not satisfy the constitutional-principles requirement, and failure to register one's wife and child under the Alien Registration Act or to file an income tax return despite earning above the statutory threshold demonstrates improper conduct.

Benjamin Co, a Chinese citizen owing allegiance to the Nacionalist Government of China, filed a petition for naturalization under Republic Act No. 503. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition. The governing law required applicants to believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and to conduct themselves in a proper and irreproachable manner in their relations with the constituted government and the community. The case also implicated the Alien Registration Act and the income tax return requirement.

Benjamin Co was born on March 13, 1931 in Bangued, Abra, the son of Go Cham and Yu Suan, both Chinese, and owed allegiance to the Nacionalist Government of China. He married Leonor Go in the Catholic church of Bangued, Abra, and had a two-month-old child. He spoke and wrote English as well as the Ilocano and Tagalog dialects, graduated from Abra Valley College, and finished his primary studies in the "Colegio" in Bangued, Abra, both schools being recognized by the government. He had never been accused of any crime involving moral turpitude, was not opposed to organized government, was not a member of any subversive organization, did not believe in or practice polygamy, had never gone abroad since birth, mingled with Filipinos, preferred a democratic form of government, and stated that if his petition were granted he would serve the government either in the military or civil department.

He was a merchant dealing in the buy and sell of tobacco and was also part owner of a store known as "Go Tian Store" in Bangued, Abra. In his tobacco business, he had a working capital of P10,000.00 which he claimed to have accumulated through savings. He contributed to civic and charitable organizations like the Jaycees, Rotary, Red Cross, and town fiestas, and he liked the customs of the Filipinos because he had resided in the Philippines for a long time. During 1956, he claimed to have earned P1,000.00 in his tobacco business and expected to make P2,000.00 more from the same business without specifying to what years said income would correspond. With respect to the store of which he claimed to be part owner, his father gave him a sum of less than P3,000.00 representing one-fourth of the sales; aside from being a co-owner, he received a monthly salary of P120.00 as a salesman therein. He took a course in radio mechanics and completed it in 1955, had no vice of any kind, and claimed that he had never been delinquent in the payment of taxes.

He admitted, however, that he did not file his income tax return when he allegedly received an amount of not less than P3,000 from his father, which he claimed to have invested in his tobacco business. On cross-examination, when the fiscal asked him if he believed in the principle underlying the Philippine Constitution, he answered that "he believes in the laws of the Philippines." He did not state what principles of the Constitution he knew, although when asked what laws of the Philippines he believed in, he answered "democracy." Asked why he did not file his income tax return, he stated that his father had already filed his income tax return, and he merely promised that he would file his. He presented his alien certificate of registration but did not present the alien certificates of registration of his wife and child.

The trial court, after hearing, granted the petition for naturalization. The government appealed, contending that petitioner had failed to comply with some of the requirements prescribed by law. The Supreme Court found that his belief in the laws and in democracy was insufficient, that his failure to register his wife and child under the Alien Registration Act showed improper conduct, and that his failure to file his income tax return likewise indicated that he had not conducted himself properly in his relation with the government.

• Failure to Prove Belief in Constitutional Principles: Respondent argued that petitioner failed to state that he believed in the principles underlying the Constitution; his answer that he believed in the laws of the Philippines, and later that he believed in democracy, was insufficient to comply with the requirement of the law.
• Failure to Register Wife and Child: Respondent argued that petitioner failed to register his wife and child with the Bureau of Immigration as required by the Alien Registration Act, showing that he did not conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relation with the government.
• Failure to File Income Tax Return: Respondent argued that petitioner failed to file his income tax return despite a fixed salary of P1,440.00 a year, a profit of P1,000.00 in his tobacco business, and receipt of less than P3,000 from his father, the total of which was more than what is required by law for one to file an income tax return, indicating improper conduct.
• General Qualifications: Respondent contended that the trial court erred in finding that petitioner had all the qualifications for naturalization and none of the disqualifications mentioned in the law.

• Belief in Constitutional Principles: Whether petitioner complied with the requirement that he believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution when he stated only that he believed in the laws of the Philippines and in democracy.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — Alien Registration: Whether petitioner's failure to register his wife and child with the Bureau of Immigration under the Alien Registration Act constituted failure to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relations with the government.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — Income Tax Return: Whether petitioner's failure to file his income tax return despite earning income above the statutory threshold constituted failure to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.
• Naturalization: Whether the trial court erred in granting the petition for naturalization.

• Belief in Constitutional Principles: No. The statement that he believed in the laws of the Philippines and in democracy did not satisfy the requirement of belief in the principles underlying the Constitution.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — Alien Registration: No. Failure to register his wife and child under the Alien Registration Act showed that he did not conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in relation to the government.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — Income Tax Return: No. Failure to file his income tax return despite income exceeding the statutory threshold indicated improper conduct toward the government.
• Naturalization: No. The trial court erred in granting the petition; naturalization laws are strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant.

• Belief in Constitutional Principles: The law requires belief in the principles underlying the Constitution. The scope of the word "law" in ordinary legal parlance does not necessarily include the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land, nor does it cover all the principles underlying the Constitution. The Constitution declares fundamental policies such as renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, defense of the State as the prime duty of the government, support for the duty and right of parents to rear their children for civic efficiency, and promotion of social justice as the main concern. By stating that he believed merely in our laws, petitioner did not necessarily refer to those principles embodied in the Constitution. His answer was therefore insufficient.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — Alien Registration: The law requires that petitioner must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner 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. Petitioner failed to register his wife and child with the Bureau of Immigration as required by the Alien Registration Act. He therefore failed to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relation with the government.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — Income Tax Return: Petitioner failed to file his income tax return despite having a fixed salary of P1,440.00 a year, making a profit of P1,000.00 in his tobacco business, and receiving an amount less than P3,000 from his father as one-fourth of the proceeds of the sale of the store, the total of which was more than what is required by law for one to file an income tax return. His reasoning that he made that earning during the year in which the case was being heard was not convincing. This failure indicated that he had not conducted himself properly in his relation with the government.
• Naturalization: Considering that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant, as held in Co Quing Reyes vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 889, the trial court erred in granting the petition for naturalization. The decision appealed from was therefore reversed.

• Strict Construction of Naturalization Laws — Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. The Court applied this doctrine to reverse the grant of naturalization because petitioner failed to show full compliance with the statutory qualifications.
• Belief in Principles Underlying the Constitution — A naturalization applicant must believe in the principles underlying the Constitution, not merely in the laws of the country or in democracy. The word "law" in ordinary legal parlance does not necessarily include the Constitution or all the principles underlying it. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that petitioner's answers were insufficient.
• Proper and Irreproachable Conduct — An applicant must conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government and the community. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that petitioner's failure to register his wife and child under the Alien Registration Act and his failure to file his income tax return violated the requirement.
• Compliance with Tax Laws as Indicator of Proper Conduct — Failure to file an income tax return despite earning income above the statutory threshold indicates improper conduct toward the government. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that petitioner's failure to file his return supported the denial of naturalization.

• "Considering that "naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant" (Co Quing Reyes vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 889), we are constrained to hold that the trial court erred in granting the petition for naturalization." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on strict construction of naturalization laws and is the Court's basis for reversing the grant.
• "Indeed, the scope of the word law in ordinary legal parlance does not necessarily include the constitution which is the fundamental law of the land, nor does it cover all the principles underlying our constitution." — This passage defines why a general statement of belief in "laws" does not satisfy the requirement of belief in the principles underlying the Constitution.
• "Our law also requires that petitioner must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner 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." — This passage states the statutory requirement of proper and irreproachable conduct that the Court found petitioner had violated.
• "It furthermore appears that he failed to file his income tax return despite the fact that he has a fixed salary of P1,440.00 a year and made a profit of P1,000.00 in his tobacco business, and received an amount less than P3,000 from his father as one-fourth of the proceeds of the sale of the store, the total of which is more than what is required by law for one to file an income tax return, a fact which indicates that he has not also conducted himself properly in his relation with our government." — This passage explains the factual basis for finding improper conduct arising from non-filing of the income tax return.

• Co Quing Reyes vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 889 — Cited by the Supreme Court for the rule that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant; the Court relied on it to reverse the grant of naturalization.

• Republic Act No. 503 — The naturalization law under which petitioner sought citizenship; the trial court ordered issuance of the certificate after two years from finality and compliance with its requisites. The Supreme Court applied its qualification requirements.
• Alien Registration Act — Required registration of aliens; petitioner's failure to register his wife and child with the Bureau of Immigration was treated as failure to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in relation to the government.
• Philippine Constitution — The naturalization law required belief in the principles underlying the Constitution. The Court noted that the Constitution embodies fundamental policies such as renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, defense of the State as the prime duty of government, support for parents' duty and right to rear children for civic efficiency, and promotion of social justice as the main concern.
• Income tax law (as referred to in the decision) — The Court noted that petitioner's total income exceeded the amount required by law for filing an income tax return, and his failure to file indicated improper conduct toward the government. No specific statutory section is identified in the text.

• Justice Paras
• Chief Justice Bengzon
• Justice Labrador
• Justice Concepcion
• Justice Barrera
• Justice Gutierrez David