16. Supreme Court Decisions, Board of Liquidators v. Floro et al. - Justice J.B.L. Reyes.pdf · Rare Periodicals

16. Supreme Court Decisions, Board of Liquidators v. Floro et al. - Justice J.B.L. Reyes.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: Xi Em'.IU.110 i!t. J>l#"cz, l-'i.titione-r-<1ppella11t, ti•. Th~ Cit11 Ma.-;;o-r o/ v<U1<£1i<U11an, ct ac, Ho11pondent-aµpellees, (j.R. No. L-1C71JG, Octobo,. 41, J9GJ, De Leon, J. L. SECRETARY OP HEALTH; SUPERVISION AND CON· TROL OF GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS; AND REGULATIONS TO GOVERN HOSPITAL FINANCING.- Section 7 of the Hospital Financing Law (Republic Act No. 1939) vests upon the Socretarf of Health the supervision and control ovcr .nJI the gc.venunent hospitals established and c.perated un~'.e!' the Act and t>mpowers him to prJmulgate rules and reguhtt.ions to implement its provisions. Pursuant to this sectim1, the said Secretary has pl'Omuigatcd rules and regulations, (Circular No. 262 of the Dcpsrtment of Health, c!ated ~uly 24, l~liB) ..o govern h.ospit!\l tinan::rn~. 2. ID.; FUNDS FOR THF. CONSTRUCTION OF PROVINCI&.I HOSPITAL; MANDAMUS; DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.- Circular No. 262. De· partmer.t of Health, ds.ted July 24, 1958 dearly specifies tJ-,, proper course and the particular official of the Departnwrt of Health who, with the Auditor General, may pursue the saiC cour;;e whrmcvor any province, ci!y and/or municipality fail~ to pr-o\•ide an<l. 1"emit their respC'Ctive contributions· unde1· t1H' Hospital Financing Law. There is no mention whatsoever that t!ic chief of a provincial hospital may bring any actic.n aga?n.'lt the province, city and/ or municipality concerned in ordc1· ·Urnt the lat.let may be made to give their contriOutions. Unr l'e1· the citcumr.tances of the p:·esent case, the most that the ~ere· in pt>titicncr could do is to report to his superior official t~r failure of respondents to set aside the amount \hat the City o! Cabanatuan is obliged to give for the support of the provind:.il hospital of which he is the chief. The reco1·d does not sP.ow that petitioner had taken this step !:>cfore coming to court. .. HELD: There b-:!ing an appropriate administrative re· med¥ - plain, speedy and adequate - that cl•uld have firi;:t been availed of by petitioner, his action for mandamus is, therefore, premature. Special civil actions have been held nut entertain.able if superior administ i·ative officers could grant rdic{ (Peralta vs. Salcedo, G.R. No. L-10771, A1iril 30, 19Vi l. In other words, no n~eours~ to the cuurts can be had until :111 ndminist.rative remedies have been exhausted. DE C I S I ON This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of l<~irst In· i<tance of Nuova Ecija, dismissi:lg a petition for mandamus seeking to C()mpel the respondents to appropriate the sum of P24,983.12 from the gcnt-ral fund of Cabanatuan City to be paid to the Nue. va Ecija Provincial Hospital. In his petition, the Chief of the NU(•Va Ecija Provincial Ho!lpital, who claims to be. the officer bound by law to administer and prote.::t the interests of said' hospital alleged that under section 2(a) of Republic Act No. 1939, otherwise known as the Hospital Fin:mcing Law, which took effect on June 22, 1957, the City of Ct1· b:matuan is under obligati!m tn appropriate by ordinance at Jea:;:c! 7 "/o of its annual general income as <'ontribution for the SUJlfl.irl of the hospital; that, accordingly, for the fiscal y.:ur 1957-58, th,. :1mount of P34,983.12 i\hould huve been appropriated by the city ·council for that purpose because the city then had an annual ~11ernl inco,;..e of P555,700.00, but 0nly Pl0,000.00 ot s~id amount wa~ ~ct asid.i, leaving a deficiency of P24,~83.l2. It is this last mf'll· tioneJ ~mount that is the obje::C of th·~ action for mandamus a "!ainst the City Mayor, the Municip:i.;· BoaJ'(l and the City Treasure1· of l'abanatuan. After the filing of the answer by the respou<lents, the cri~e \1as 5ubmitted for judirmcnt on the pleadings Wht-reupon, th" IC'wcr cou1·t rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the i:rounil that the petitioner is not the real party in interest. Insisting that he has the riirht to brini;: the action for mandamus, the petitioner has appealed directly to thi; Court. The appeal cannot prosper. Section 7 of the Hospital Financini;: Law vests upon the SC'Cretary of Heslth the supervision and control over 1:11 the government hospitals established and operated unde.r th~ Act and ernpowers him to promulgate rules and regulations to implement its provisions. Pursuant to this section, the said Secretary has prnmulgated rules and regulations (Circular No. 262 of the Department of Health, dated J uly 24, 1958) to govern hospital· financing. It is provided under section 3(c) thereof that: "(c) In case of failure on the part of th~ province, cit.y and/or muncipality concerned to p?"ovide for ~nd remit their 1e!>pectivl· obligat:ons, as provid<·d for in se :.tions 2(a) and 2 (2) of the Act, the Secretary of Finance, upon reeommeTidatton of the Secretary of Hc:alth and the Auditor General, Jhall order the withholrling of the amount needed from their re~ pectivc shares in the Internal Revenue al!'otmer..ts." The above-quoted rule clearly specifies the proper course end the particular official of the Department of Health who, with thr. An· ditor General, may pul'sue the said co•.1rse whenever any province, city and'/or municipality fails to provide and remit their respeo:tive cont1·ibutions under the Hospital Financing Law. There is no mention whatsoever that the ·chief of a provincial hospital may bring any action against the province, city and/or municipality concerned in order that the lattc>r may be made to give their contributions. , Under the cir<:umstan<"es of the present case, the most that thP hei·Cin petitioner could do is to report to hi! superior official !.ht• fuilurc of respondents to wt aside the amount that the City fl( Cubanatu~n i!: obliged to give for the support ..,r the provinri:ll hospita l of which he is the chief. The record does not show th11.t pC'titione1· has taken this $tC!> before coming to court. The!'e Lcing an approp1·iate administrutive tC'medy - plnin, speedy ';lnd P.dequate - that could have first been availed of by petitioner, hir. action for mandamus is, therefore, premature. Speciat civil acfi,~nf\ have been held not entel'lainable if superior aclministl'ative offil'nr. could grant 1elief (Peralta vs. Salcedo, C.R. No. L-10771, Ap?·il 30, 1!)57). In other words, no recourse to the courts can be had imlil a:J 11.dministrative r emedies have been exhausted (Peralta vs. Salcedo. G.R. No. L-10771, snpra.: Panti vs. The Provincial Board of Catanduanes, G.R. No. L-14047, Jnnuary 30, 1960; Booe vs. Osmciin, Jr., G.R. No. L-14810, May 31, 1061; De la Tcirre V !'. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-14907, May 31, 19GO). In view of the foregoing, the decision Of the \·ower C(lUrt clis· missing the petition for mnndumus is hneby affirmed, without p1·011ouncemcnt as to costs. PUA.lifki, Bmttislf• A nyelo, Lcibrador, Concepcio~, ,J.B.L. R ... yu, Pnredes ancl Dizon, JJ .. concuned. /Jrtrre1'1l, J., took no pat-t. XII Hou ri uf Uq11i1/Jitors, Peti.tioner-Appellant, vs. f:xel111iel F/ol'o, et al., Ovvo1Jilo1s-.Appell,.t.~. C.R . . "Vo. f,.J.5155, n,,c. 29, 1960, Rew•s, I Bl, J 1. B6ND ; IT STANDS A~ GUARANTY FOR A PRINCIPAL OULJGP. TJON.- A bond merely iotands a~ s uaranty for 3 principal obligation which may f'xist indf!pende.ntly or s-tlid bond, the latter being mereJy a11 ac<·css~ry contract. 2. NOVATION; HEQUISITES. - N<Jvation is never presumed, it i:t(:i1~g ref!uircd that the intent to novate hf' eJ:prcssed cle:\1 ·ly a11d unequivocally, oi· that arms uf the new agreement be in· compatiblC' with the old contract. .'.!. ID.; EXTEN~iON OF PERIOD OF PAYMENT OR PEI!· PORJ\!ANCE NOT NOVATION.- A mere "xtension o' the term (pe1 iod) for payment ot· pcrfo1·ma11ce is not novation. 1 1. INSOLVENCY; PROCEEDINGS TO S~T ASIDE f<'RAU P· U LENT TRANSFERS BE BROUGHT BY ASSIGNEE.--U11der sectiun 36, No. 8, of the Insolvency Act, all proceeding~ to set aside fraud'u.lent trar.sfers should ·be brought and p:-r, secuted b~- the assigi1e.e, who cnn ]('~n\ly !'('J,l'esC'nt 2.lt the crMi~Novc:mber 30, 1961 LA WYERS a-OURNAL Page 345 ors of the insoh•ent (Maceda, et al. v. Hernandez, et al. , 70 Phil. 26IJ. 5. ID. ; ID.; REASON OF TH_E LAW.-To allow a sini:le cre~~to1 to bring such u proceeding would invite a multiplicity of suits. since the resolution of his caS"f' would not bind the other c:·~ d1tors, who may refile the same claim in<lepcndently, with diveri:r rroofs, anc~ possibly give rise to contradictory ruling;: of the courts DE C I S IO N From an order of the Court of First Instance ci Manila, •ht~d August JO, 1955, denying its petition to exclude rc_rtain piece£ of stet! matting from the assets of the insolvent M. P. Malabanan, the Bosrd of Liquidators appealed to the; Co>Jrt .lf Apµee.ls. Th:latter certified the case to this Court on the ground that only questions c.f law are involved. The Boc1·d of Liquidators (hereinaflc1 1eferred to as th" Board) is an agency of the Government created u11der Executi\'e Order No. 372 (November 24. 1950), and, pursuant to Ex~utive Order No. 377 (December 1, 1950), took over the functions of oiefund Surplui, P roperty LiquiJatini; C••mmitt<>c. On J une 14, 1952, Melecio Malabanan Pn!ered into a n agn ·<'ment with ihc Board for the sa lvage of surplus propertie!'- sunk in territorial waters off the provinces of Mindoro, La Union, and BatangH£ (Exhibit "A"). By its terms, Malabanan was to commence opcrat.ions within 30 days from l:Xecution .>f said contract. which was to be effective for a period of not more t~an six (6) months. On June IO, 1953, Malabanan requested for an extension 'of one (1) year for the salvage in wnters c>f Mindorn and Batengas; and the Board extended the contract up to November 30, 1953. On No•en\be1 18, 1953, Malaba1~an requested a second extension of c:one (1) moro.J year for the waters of Occirlentut Mindoro. and thf' Board extended the contract up to August 3 1, 1S54. Malabann1: subm1tteJ u recovt>ry report dated Uuly 26, 1954, wherein it is stated that he had recovered a total of 13,107 pieces of steel mattings, as follc.ws: 1-Dttember, 1953-April 30, 1954 2- May 1, 1954...iune 30, 1954 2,555 10,552 13,107 (pieces) Four months previcusly, Malabanan had entered into an agreement with. Exequiel Floro, dated March 31, 1954 (Exhibit 1, Floro), in which among other t hings, it was agreed that Floro would arlvance to Malabanan certain sums of money, not to exceed P25,000.00. repayment thereof being secured by quantities of steel mattings which Malabanan would consign to Florn; that said advances were to be paid within a rertain period, and UJ)On default at 1he expira· tion thereof, Floro was authorized to sell whatever steel mattings were in his possession under said contract, in an amount sufficient to satisfy the advances. Puri'lunnt thc1·eto. Fioro claims to have made total advances in , tho sum of P24,224.50. It appears that as Malabanan was not able to repay F loro's adva nces, the latter, by a document dated August 4, 1954, sold l l ,C!47 pieces of steel matting:> to Eulalk, Legaspi for the sum of P24,303.4Q. Seventeen days later, on August 2 1, 1954, Malabanan filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for voluntary insolvency, attaching thereto a Schedule of Accounts, in which the Board was Ji!lted as one of the creditors for Pl0,874.46, and Exequiel Fforo for P24,220.50, the origin of the obligations being described as "Manila Royalty" and "Salvagingo Operations", respectively. Also attached was an inventory of P rnperties, listing certain items of personal property allegedly aggregating P33,707.00 in value. In this list were included ll,167 pieces of steel mattings with an alleged estimated value of P33,501.00. Soon efter, the Board, claiming to hf' the owner of the li«tcd steel matting, filed a petition to exclude them from the inventory; and to !Tiake the insolvent account fat· a further 1,940 pieces of steel ntatting, the difference between the nun;ber stated in the insolvc.nt's recovery report of July 26, 1954 and that stated in the inventory. Exi:quiel Floro opposed the Board's J)elition and cl:\!m~d that the i<tecl matting listed lmd becomt: the property of Eulalie Legaspi by v:11ue of a deed of sale in !'.is favo1·, executed by F ic\'O pursuant to the latter's contract with Malabanan on March 3 l, ]!)54. The court below, arter reception of evidence as to the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sa\'e to Legaspi, as welJ as of the < 'ontract between Malabanan and Floro denied the Board's petition declaring that Malabanan had acquir~d ownership over the. sO eei mattings under his contract with t he Board; that E xequiel F loro was proper!y authorized to dispose of the steel mattings under F'lorn·s contract with Malabanan; an'd that the sale to Eulalio Leg"aspi was valid and not concrary to the lnsolvency Law. In this appeal, the Boarcl contends that Malabanan did not acquire ownership over the steel mat tings due to his failure to com· ply with t he terms of the .:ontmct, allegedly constituting condibons J•recedent for the tl'ansfer of title, namely ; payment of the pr ice ; audit and check as to the nature, qu:1ntity and value of properties salvaged; weighing of the :;alv.'lgtd prOJlt'\rtics to be cond11cted jointlv by 1 ·<..prri:eutativcs of the R<> ard and of Malab:..nm1; di:terminalion of the site for storage; audit and verification of the recovery 1·epo1'ts by gcff<:rnment auditors; and li!ing of performance bond. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the contract .(Exhibit "A") between Malabanan and the Board had the effect of vesting Malabatian with t itle to, bl' ownership of, the steel mattings in question as soon as they were brought up from the bottcim o! the i<ea. This is shown by pertinent provisions 6t th~ contract ~s follows: "10. For and in consideratioH of the assignment by tl1e BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS to the CONTRACTOR (Mala'Jnnan) of all right, title and interest in and to all surplus prop<:'rtic'l salvaged by the CON'TRACTOR under this contract, the CONTRACTOR i;hall pay to the Government NI NETY PESOS (P90.00) per long to11 (2,240 lbs.) of su1·plus properties recove1·erl. " 11. Pa}:ment of the ag n:.ed price shall be made monthly durin:,: fr:,. first ten ( IO) days of every mor.th on the bar.is of re.-overy r-eports of sunken surplus properties salvaged rlnrlhe prcce1 ling month, d:.ily ve1ifietl and audited by the authorized representative of the BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS." That Mals.00.nan was 1't'!quir<:d undCI' the contract to pos~ a hond of Pl'),000.00 to guarantee comp.liance with the terms .nnd conditions of the contract; that the operations for sak agu wer~ e11tircly at M.-iiabanan'!I expense nnd r isk; that gold, silver, CO!l!">l!I', coins, cu.rrency, jewelry, precious stones, etc. v.-e1·e excepted from the contract, and were instead required to be turned over to the Boant for Jisposition; that the expenses for storage, inclw~ing guard service, were for Malabanan's aecount.--all these circumstances indicated that ownei·ship of the g<iods passed to Malabanan as soon as they were recovered or i:alvaged (i.e., as soon as the salvor had gained effective possession of the goods) , and not only afh~r payment of the stipulate~ price. While there can be reservation of title in the seller until full payment of t he price (Article 1478, N.C.C,). or until fulfillment of a Mndition (A1·ticle 1505! N.C.C.); and while execution of a public instrument amounts to delivery only when from the dee<! the contruy does not a ppear or cannot clearly be inferred (Articll' 1498, supra.) thet·£: is nothing in the said c;.nt'act which may be <fcemed a reservation of title, or from which it may clearly be infe!'l'ed thet <leii\'ery was not intended. The coni.•ntion that there was 110 dclivet·y is iucorrl.'Ct. While lhere was no physical tradition, there was one by agreement (tradition lon[la monu} in conformits with A rticl<' 1499 of the Ci\·il Code. "Article 1499 - The delivery of movable property may likewise be made by the m<'re consent or ,agreement of the contracting parties, if the thing sold cannot be transferred to the possession of the vendec at the time of !hr sa1e. x x x" As obsern:d earlier, there i:; nothing in tbe terms of the publi.;. instrument in question from which P.n intent to withhold delivPry 01· transfer of tit.le muy be inferred. Page a46 LA WYERS !JOURNAL NCJvember 30, 1961 The Board 11liw ccntonds that a g no renewal of the bond re<1uired was filed for the extension of the contract, it ceased to have any force :rnd effect; and, as the steel mattings were recovl'rNI during the extended period of the contract, Mnlabanan did not acquire any rights thereto. The pert inent portion or the contract 111·ovides: "J2, • J f'intly with the ex<'cution of this contract, the CONTHACTOR SHALL file :i. bcmd in the amount of TEN THOUSAND <PI0,000.00) PES08 to b''uarantee his faithful com pliance with the terms and conditions herein ; Provided, t hat this contract shall not be considered to have beC'n executed notwithsW.nding the signing hereof by the parties until said bond shall havt'.' been properly filed." Malabanan filed a bond dated J une 10, l!l52, effective for onC' ( l) year, or up to J une 10, 1953. The principal contract, executed 011 'June 14, 1952, was first extended to November 30, 1953, and finally, to August 3 1, 1954. A i can be seen, there was no longer ;11;y bond from June ti, 1953 tC! August 3 1, 1954. The iaps.:: of the bond did i1ot extinguish the contract between Malabanan snd the Board. The requirement that a bond be po<;terl was already complied with wl1PT~ Mah1bl\nan filed the bond date,~ June JO, 1952. A bond merely stands as guaranty for a principal obligation which may exist inde~ndently of said bond, the !atter being merely an accessory contract (Valencia v. RFC & C.A., L-10749, April 25, 1958). Significantly, its purpose, as per the terms of the contract, was "to guarantee his (Malabanan's) ftiithful compliance with the terms and conditions herein"; and, for • violaUon of the contract, the lioard m:1y decl:i.re "the bond for~ feite•J" (Jlar. 13). Being for its ben~fil, the Board could leg·ally Naive th~ bond requirement (Valencia v. RFC, et al., supn1) , :rnd it did so when, the bond already having expired, it extenchl the contract not only once, but twice. I n none of the resolutions C'Xtending the contract (Annexes "C" & •'E", pp. 108-112; Record on Appeal) was there a requirement that the bond be renewed, in the face of the first indor"Eement by the Executive Officer ·of the Board (Annex . " F", pp. 112-113, Record on Appeal) recommending that Malabanan's request for a second extension be ~ranted 'provided the bond he originally posted should continue." There is no merit to t he suggestion that there being a novation, A rticle 1299 of the Civil Code should govern. Novation is never presumed, it being requil'ed that the intent to Hovatc he expressed clearly and uneq11h•oca:ly, or that the lei ms of the rcw agreement be incompatible with the old contract (Article 1:!!12, N.C.C.; Martinez v. Cavives, 25 Phil. 581; Tiu Siuce v. H ab:i.na, 4i) Phil'. 707; Pablo v. Sapun8an, 71 Phil. 145; Young v. Vill:i, L-5331, May 13, 1953). Here there was neither express novation nor incompatibility from which it could be implied. Moi·eover, a mere extension of the term (period) for payment or perform:m:e is not nGvation (Inchausti v. Yulo, 34 Phil. 978; Zapanta v. De Rotaeche, 21 Phil. 154; Pablo v. Sapungan, supra); and, while the extension covered only some of the areas originally agreed upon, this change did not alter the essence Of the contract (cf. Romas v. Gibbon, 67 Phil. 371; Bank of P.I. v. Herridge, 47 Phil. 57). It is next contended that the ;;ale by Flol'O to Legaspi on August 4, 1954 (within 30 days priOJ' to petition for insolvency) wns void as a fraudulent transfer under Section 70 of the Inso!n.1~c)' Law. The court below hP-ld that the sale to I .eguspi was valid and not violative of Section 70; but there having been no p1·oceedings to determine whether the sale was fraudulent, we think it was premature for the court ht-low to <!ecide the !Joint, espetially because under section 36, No. 8, of the Insolvency Act, alt proceed in~s to set aside fraudulent t ransfers should be brought and prosecuted by the assignee, who can legally represent all the creditors of the insolvent (Maceda, et al, v. Hernandez, et al., 70 Phil. 261). To allow a single creditor to bring such a proceeding would invite a multiplicity of suits, since the resolution of his case would not bind the other creditors, who may refile the same c\:1im independently, with diverse proofs, and possibly give rise to contradictory rulings by the courts. The order appealed from is hereby affirmed in so far as it Jeclares the disputed goocls to be the property of the insolvent ; but without prejudice t.o the right of the assignee in insolvency to take whatever action may be proper to attack the alleged fraudulent transfer of the stee-1 matting lo Eu!alio Legaspi, and to make the proper parties account for t he difference between the r:umber of pieces of steel matting stated in the insolvent's recovery report, Annex " B" (13,107), and that stat~ in his inventory (11,167) . Costs against appellant. Para~, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Lab1·ador, llarrero, Gntierrez Davfrl, Paredes, wn<l Dizon, JJ., c0?1curred. Padilla, J., took no part. Xlll LaQ &frrn Sit alias Lorenzo Ting, Petit1·oner-a,ppellant, t>s. Rt1p1tblic of the Philippines, Oppositoi--appef/ee, G.R. N o. D-1554$, September 29, 1961, Reyes, J.8 .L., J. NATURALIZATION; EVASION IN PAYMENT OF TAXES AS GROUND FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION.- In the case al bar, it appears that in the ,·e1·ified income tax 1-eturns filed by petitioner and that of his wife for t he years fro1 n 1951 to 1957, the contents of which he ·ratified under oath while on the witnes3 stand', the spouses appear to have claim exemption for a f ourth child by the name of Ting Kock King, supposedly born on 10 Oct'obe1· 1948. or the inconsistency between the sworn statements, petitiom'1· profcrred no explanation whut.c;oever, although <'Ounscl for a ppellant insinuates in the brief that Ting Kock King could be an adopted child of the spouses ; but the insinuation is totally devoid of p1·oof, which the applicant was duty bound to submit to the Courl. He/cl: Tha contradictory statements under oath can only leact to the conclusion either that petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from him or that he has concealed the t ruth in his application. E ither alterna tive would be sufficient to disqualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship. DEC I S IO N A1 >peal from a decree of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, denying the application of petitioner-appellant Lao Lian Su aliaa Lorenzo Ting for achnission to Philippine citizenship, because of applicant's failure to observe irreproachable conduct in his relations with constituted a uthoi·ities dut·ing the entire period o{ his residence in the Philippines. We s~ no merit in the ap1>eal. In his sworn petition for naturn!ization as well a s in his testimony, petitioner stated that he t>as only tht-e(. children with his wife Chua Kim T ia, namely: B~-;ic Ting, born 11/ 25/39 E steban Ting, born 4/ 11/ 46 Betty T ing, born ~/16/51. Ye:t in the v~rificd income tax retu rns filed in his name and tha'' of his wife for the years from 1951 tr:. H.157, the ('Ontent~ of wt1ich he rntifird under oath while on the witness 8hmd, the spouses apvea!· 10 have claim exemption for a fourth child by the nam') nf Ting Koc!t King, su11posedly' bGn 1 on 10 October 194.8. Of the incc.nsist'!ncy between the sworn statements, petitioner proferred no explanation whatsoever, although counsel for appellant insinuate;; in the brief that Ting Kock Ki ng could be a n adopted child of thcr.pouse:,i; but the insinuation is totally devoid of proof, which the applicant was duty bound to stibmit to the Court. As the rc..-:u"d now s:a1Hls, I.he <'ontradictory st:ltements under oath can only lea,~ to the conclusion either that the petitil'.'ncr tried to evade Ja,• t-!111 taxes due fr<>m him or that he has conce:aled the t r.ith in his .<lO· plic::ition. E ither alternative would be sufficient to disqualify him for :idrnission to l'hilippine citizenship. For all the fo1 ·egoing consiJcrations, the. deeisit'.'n ap;>enled fr()nt is affirmed, with costs against the appC'llant. IJcnyzon, C.J., Pmlilln, Labrrulor, Cflncepcion, Paredes anrl De ! ~eon, JJ., co11c1wred. Hauti8ta Angelo, J., took no part. November 30, 1961 LA WYERS O'OURNAL Page 347
Date: 1961
Rights