Challenging  the Leyte  court's  decision, which  allows Tan Bee  Chiu alias Alfonso Tan  to  be naturalized, the Solicitor-General submits  three objections,  to wit:

1. Lack of jurisdiction, because Tan Bee did not reside in Leyte  but lived  in  Cebu;  2. His  witnesses who lived in Leyte,  could not  possibly speak of his good conduct and  morality; 3.  No proof  that  Tan Bee Chiu was a citizen  of Nationalist  China and, therefore, eligible  to Philippine citizenship.^[1]
   

We  have examined the record,  and we found no good ground to sustain the first two  objections. As to the first, the oppositor itself admits that petitioner was  born  in Hindang, Leyte,  that  therein   he finished the elementary  and  secondary courses, that  he worked in his father's store  in the locality until he left for Cebu  in 1954 one year before he filed this application to be employed as  cashier at P300.00 a month and that thereafter, he spent his weekend vacations  with  his parents in  Hindang.  This shows  his legal  residence  in Leyte.  His work in Cebu as a cashier did not, by itself, Republic of the Philippines vs. Tan Bee Chiu change his residence, where his conduct and his declarations  evinced no intention  to abandon it,  considering specially that he returned to Hindang  whenever his occupation permitted.  Many doing business in Manila have preserved  their residence in their respective native towns. There is  no doubt that  one  person may actually  live and work  in one  place,  and  yet  continue  to have his   legal residence in his place of birth.^[2]

This Court has ruled that  residence  of applicants for naturalization,  means  legal residence  or  domicile not   necessarily physical presence,  actual continuous  stay in   one town or  province.^[3]    

In connection  with Tan Bee's stay in  Cebu since 1954, the competency of his character witnesses is put in issue.  Being residents   of  Leyte, how could  they,  it is  asked,  ascertain his conduct and  activities in Cebu?  It must   be  remembered  that these witnesses knew  the applicant   in  Leyte since  1940 and 1942 and  had plenty of  time     to  inform  themselves  as to  his  behaviour and  habits.  They  further declared before  the  court that  after  Tan Bee had gone to Cebu they saw him on week-ends when    he  came back home on  furloughs from that city.  To qualify,  the witnesses need not have seen  the applicant every day and every week.

"* * * The fact that witness had not  actually seen petitioner on other occasions  does not mean that he  cannot testify as to the   moral conduct of petitioner.  If the petitioner had really been unworthy, his unworthiness would have come home to the knowledge   of the witness, not from observations of the petitioner himself but   from other persons who could have called the  attention of  the witness as to such unworthiness. It is not those who have  actually   and continuously seen  a  person  alone  that can testify as to his  good conduct and behaviour.  In a  community  the conduct and behaviour of a person becomes known more from his reputation than from actual  observation.  * * *"  (Yu Tong  Su vs. Republic, 101 Phil., 169; 53 Off.  Gaz. [15] 4825.)   

"* *  * one does  not need to personally know another from the moment of the latter's birth or age of reason, to qualify  as witness to his proper and law-abiding  behaviour.  Existing records, common reputation  and) mutual friends and acquaintances are available sources of information.  * * *"  (Lay  Lock  vs. Republic, 102 Phil., 657; 54 Offi.  Gaz.  [16] 4713.)

The Pong case ^[4] invoked  in the Republic's printed brief is different in one material aspect:   There  the applicant's supporting witnesses  did not meet him for several years.

The third  objection, however,  carries  weight.  Except his  own statements,  there  is  no  proof  of applicant's pretended allegiance  to Nationalist  China.   In  the light of our views in Cabrales Cu vs. Republic,  97 Phil., 746; 51 Off.  Gaz.  (11)  5625,  they  seem  to   be  insufficient, specially  because he  himself admitted he was not listed in  the local  Embassy  of such  Republic.  Note furthermore,  that his written application states he  is a citizen of  China, without specifying.^[5]  The  doubt  must be  resolved against him^[6]  since he has the burden  of  proof.

Accordingly, the decision of the  court  a quo will be reversed  and  the  application  denied,  with  costs against appellee.

Paras,  C. J.,  Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, and Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Citizens of Nationalist  China may be naturalized here.  Loch Ben  Ping vs.  Republic, 84 Phil., 217; 47 Off.  Gaz. 176 cited in Velayo, Citizenship and Naturalization p. 61.

^[2] Su vs. Ranillo, 39 Off. Gaz. 1388.  

^[3] King vs. Republic of the Philippines, 89 Phil., 4.    

^[4] Pong vs. Republic,  G. R. No. L-9153, May 17, 1947.

^[5] If he is a subject of Communist China, it is not shown that the laws of such country admit Filipino citizenship.

^[6] U. S. vs. Manzi, 276, U. S.  463, 467; U. S. vs. Macintosh, 283, U. S. 605.

---

CONCURRING

REYES, J. B.L. J.,  :

I concur, but  reserve my vote on the question of the competency of the Leyte  witnesses.

---

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING

MONTEMAYOR, J.,

If I remember correctly,  during the discussion of  this case, my colleagues  were agreed  that petitioner-appellee may file another application  for  naturalization  wherein he may present evidence that he is a citizen of Nationalist China, the only element  lacking to his becoming a Filipino citizen as decreed by the trial court.  If that be the case, and in order to avoid loss of time  in the filing  of the  corresponding new application, the publication thereof and hearing  wherein all the evidence  already received  in this case will again be submitted in court,  this case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, namely  for  the petitioner-appellee  to  present evidence, if he can,  that he is a  citizen  of  Nationalist  China and owes allegiance thereto,  and also to explain why he was not  listed in  the local Embassy of the Republic of China. Judgment reversed.