* bok * cj * tiff * gem * tin * 2
The question calls for the application of Sec. 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law:
No declaration shall be valid until entry for permanent residence has beenestablished and a certificate showing the date, place and manner of his arrival has been issued.
that no documentary or testimonial evidence was introducedto establish the fact that appellee had lawfully been admitted into the Philippinesfor permanent residence. In the
the following can be read:I arrived at the Port of Manila on or about the first day of March, 1923, as shownby the attached certificate of arrival or landing certificate of residence.
CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL NOT ESSENTIAL
. The records of the Bureau of Justice, where the declarations of intention to become a Filipino citizen were filed,had been lost or destroyed during the battle for the liberation of Manila, & thecertificate alluded to has not been reconstituted. Appellant's contention thatattachment of the certificate of arrival is essential to the validity of a declarationfinds no support in the wordings of the law, as Sec. 5 of Commonwealth Act no.473 uses the words "has been issued.
. He argues that the appellant failed to raise it inlower court & points out that (1) there is testimonial evidence showing his arrivalMarch, 1923, (2) that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence, & (3) histestimony has not been refuted. Appellee alleges that the office of the Presidenthas certified that it is a matter of record that he was 1 of the Russian refugeeswho entered the Philippines under the command of Admiral Stark, the factsregarding arrival of the latter fleet being a matter of common knowledge, widelypublicized in the newspapers at the time, of which this Court may properly take judicial notice under Sec. 5 of Rule 123. When the fleet entered the Philippinewaters, it was met by a Gov. Gen. Wood who, later, took the matter up with theauthorities in Washington in lengthy correspondence, & the 1,200 personsmanning the fleet were allowed to land & to remain in the Philippines or proceedto other countries, except about 800 who were allowed to go to the US & givenfree transportation on the naval transport "Merritt." The ships of the fleet were soldin the Philippines.
COURT: PERMANENT RESIDENT
. The undisputed fact that the petitioner hasbeen continuously residing in the Philippines for about 25 years, without havingbeen molested by the authorities, who are presumed to have been regularlyperforming their duties & would have arrested petitioner if his residence is illegal,as rightly contended by appellee, can be taken as evidence that he is enjoyingpermanent residence legally. That a certificate of arrival has been issued is a factthat should be accepted upon the petitioner's undisputed statement in hisdeclaration of July, 1940, that the certificate cannot be supposed that thereceiving official would have accepted the declaration without the certificatementioned therein as attached thereto.
. We conclude that petitioner's declaration is valid under Sec. 5 of the Naturalization Law, failure to reconstitute the certificate of arrivalnotwithstanding. What an unreconstituted document intended to prove may beshown by other competent evidence.
: Whether the lower court erred (1) in not finding that appellee has notestablished a legal residence in the Philippines, & (2) in not finding that he cannotspeak and write any of the principal Philippine languages? No.
Q1: PERMANENT RESIDENCE
. The 1
question has been disposed of in theabove discussion. Perusal of the testimonies on record leads to the conclusionthat petitioner has shown legal residence in the Philippines for a continuousperiod of not less than 10 years as required by Sec. 2 of CAct No. 473.
. SolGen alleges that in the oral test at the hearing, it was shownthat petitioner has only a smattering of Bicol, the Filipino language that he allegesto know, & he cannot speak it as he was not able to translate from English to Bicolquestions asked by the court & the provincial fiscal, although, in the continuationof the hearing on Sept. 30, 1947, "surprisingly enough, he succeeded answeringcorrectly in Bicol the questions propounded by his counsel, however, he fumbled& failed to give the translation of such a common word as 'love' which the fiscalasked of him.
COURT: TC PRESUMED CORRECT
. The lower court made the finding of factthat applicant speaks & writes English & Bicol & there seems to be no questionabout the competency of the judge who made the pronouncement, because hehas shown by the appealed resolution & by his questions propounded to appellee,that he has command of both English & Bicol.
STANDARD FOR KNOWING THE LANGUAGE
. The law has not set a specificstandard of the principal Philippine languages. A great number of standards canbe set. There are experts in English who say that Shakespeare has used in hisworks 15,000 different English words, & the King's Bible about 10,000, whileabout 5,000 are used by the better educated persons & about 3,000 by theaverage individual. While there may be persons ambitious enough to have acommand of the about 600,000 words recorded in the Webster's InternationalDictionary, there are authorities who would reduce basic English to a few hundredwords. Perhaps less than 100 well selected words will be enough for the ordinarypurposes of daily life.
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE
. After he was liberated in 1942 from the Japanesein the Naga prison, petitioner joined the guerrilla in the Bicol region, took part inencounters against the Japanese, & remained with the guerrilla until theAmericans liberated the Bicol provinces. If appellee with his smattering of Bicolwas able to get along with his Bicol comrades in the hazardous life of theresistance movement, we believe that his knowledge of the language satisfies therequirement of the law.
Always will B