[ G. R. No. L-2248. January 23, 1950 ] 82 Phil. 323
[ G. R. No. L-2248. January 23, 1950 ]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF VICENTE ROSAL PARDO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. VICENTE ROSAL PARDO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
TUASON, J.:
Vicente Rosal Pardo, a Spanish citizen born in Spain in 1895 and residing in the Philippines since 1905, where he married a Filipino woman and where he is at present employed, in Manila, with an annual salary of P4,800, has been adjudged by the Court of First Instance of Manila entitled to become a Filipino citizen. That the appellee is unable to speak and write any of the principal Filipino languages is the first ground of appeal by the Government.
The applicant testified that he knows enough Tagalog to be understood in that language. Lino Gutierrez, a respectable citizen who has intimately known the applicant for 27 years, having had business relations with him, confirmed the applicant’s testimony. And the trial judge, who has heard the applicant translate into Tagalog, “He venido residiendo en Filipinas por ellperiodo de 36 años,” appears to have been satisfied with the correctness of the translation (which was not transcribed.) The fact that the applicant arrived in the Philippines when “he was only 10 years old and has lived here for 44 years continuously except for a few months’ visit in Spain, mingling and dealing by reason of his work with people who use Tagalog in their daily intercourse, lends credence to his testimony that he has acquired a good working knowledge of that language. At one time, according to the evidence he owned or managed two stores successively on the Escolta, and lately he has been a foreman and warehouseman at Soriano & Co.
The portion of the applicant’s testimony which is copied in appellant’s brief should not be taken isolatedly and at face value. This testimony is obviously an extravagant understatement of the reality, typifying an extreme modesty which is thought by some to.be a virtue. We do not believe that this statement represents appellant’s sincere conviction of its literal meaning.
The other assignment of error goes to the sufficiency of the evidence on whether the laws of Spain grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens of that country. The applicant introduced a certificate signed by the Consul general of Spain in the Philippines, stating that in accordance with articles 17 and 25 of the Spanish Civil Code, among other Spanish legislation, Filipinos are eligible to Spanish citizenship in Spain. Article 17 provides that foreigners who have obtained a certificate of naturalization and those who have not obtained such certificate but have acquired domicile in any town of the Monarchy are Spaniards. No discrimination being made in these provisions, they apply to persons of any nationality.
As the Spanish Civil Code has been and still is “the basic code in force in the Philippines,” articles 17 et seq. thereof may be regarded as matters known to judges of the Philippines by reason of their judicial functions and may be judicially recognized by them without the introduction of proof. (Section 5, Rule 123.) Moreover, in a number of decisions mere authentication of the Chinese Naturalization Law by the Chinese Consulate General of Manila has been held to be competent proof of that law. (Yap vs. Solicitor General, L-1602, 46 Off. Gaz. [Supp. to No. 1], p. 250;[1] Leelin vs. Republic of the Philippines, L-l 761;[2] Yee Bo Mann vs.. Republic of the Philippines, L-1606, 46 Off. Gaz. [Supp. to No. 11], 201;[3] Jose Go alias Joseph Gotianuy vs. Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines and Felipe Fernandez, L-1563.)[4]
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed without costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.