This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance  of Laguna denying the petition for naturalization filed by  the petitioner-appellant,  Manuel Li Kwong.

The trial court,  in denying the petition for naturalization, called attention to the facts  (1) that the  appellant made a wrong choice of jurisdiction, in that while it was alleged in  the petition that the appellant is a resident of Baños, the evidence consisting of his marriage certificate, income tax returns, and residence certificate, shows that his residence is in  Manila; (2)  that while he claimed to be a Catholic, it turned out that he is  an Aglipayan;  (3) that while he claimed to have twelve employees in his printing press, without any Chinese employee, an  ocular inspection made  by the  court  showed that the printing press was not in operation and there were  only four Filipinos and one Chinaman;  and (4) that although he claimed to have an annual  income of P50,000, he had a bank account of only P2 while his wife had a bank account of only P38 thereby  casting a  doubt as to  petitioner's  solvency.

The Solicitor General in his brief  concurs with the appellant in contending that the grounds invoked by the trial court are untenable.  Even so, he recommends affirmance of the appealed  decision on the sole  ground that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

We agree with both the appellant and the Solicitor General in their view that the court a quo erred.  With reference to the matter of residence, it may be stated that the record shows that the petitioner has  since 1931 lived with his wife in Los Baños, Laguna, although he goes to Manila every day in connection with his business, thereby being absent from  his  family residence only in  the day time. The statement in the marriage contract, residence certificate and income tax returns  to the effect that the  appellant was a resident of Manila  is not conclusive and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the appellant, corroborated by his witnesses, that his residence is in Los Banos, especially considering the fact that there is absolutely no showing that the appellant owns or is renting a residential home in Manila.  We have held in the case  of Pajo vs. Borja, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1951) Off. Gaz., page 310, that  a residence  certificate is  not truly what its  name implies, "a certificate of  residence"; it is more properly an  "identification  certificate" for  the reason that  the place and date of birth and civil status  are required  to  be placed therein, and  these circumstances identify the holder, and for the further reason that the law requires it to be exhibited as a  means of identification before a government department, branch or office, or before notaries public.  It is obvious that Manila was mentioned in the income tax returns merely because he has his business there.

In connection with appellant's claim that he has an annual income of P50,000, it is to be remembered that he asked the permission of  the  court to amend his pleading by alleging  that said  income  was  meant  to  be  gross, as actually  shown by  the evidence.   This petition to amend was denied by the trial courts and we believe erroneously. The amendment  should have been allowed conformably to the Rules of Court so as to make  the  allegation in the pleading agreeable  to the facts proven.

As  to  appellant's solvency, the record shows  that he has as annual net income of about P7,000.  The fact that at the time the court make an  ocular inspection of appellant's printing press, only four Filipinos and a Chinaman were  found  therein, is  not sufficient  to overcome  the positive  evidence to the effeet  that appellant's  income is more  or  less  P7,000, not to mention  the circumstance that he owns one-half of the house where he is living in Los Baños costing about P15,600,  the  same being conjugal property, although in the name of his wife.  The number of employees which the appellant has in his printing press, alleged by him to  be eleven, is  borne out  by the corresponding report  to the  Bureau  of Labor,   Exhibit  "P". Upon the other  hand the bank balances in  favor of the petitioner and the latter's wife, are not a correct index as to the annual income.

We are constrained to overrule the objection interposed by the Solicitor General that tends to support the appealed decision, namely, that there is no sufficient proof that the appellant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.  It is noteworthy that the present petition for naturalization was unopposed, and the appellant positively testified that he has never' been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.  It is true that ordinarily clearances from the proper authorities are presented  in evidence, but there is no law to that effect, with the result that the uncontroverted evidence presented by the appellant on the point has to be given weight.  Moreover, the clearances referred  to by the  Solicitor General have in this instance been.incorporated into the record, and although they cannot be legally considered  as formal evidence,  they tend at least to satisfy a  requirement insisted upon by the Solicitor General but not imposed by  law.

Wherefore, the appealed decision  is reversed  and the petition for naturalization  filed  by the petitioner-appellant is  hereby granted So ordered without costs

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and  Endencia, JJ., concur.