THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 170603. January 29, 2007.]

EDISON SO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J : p

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision 1(1) of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80437 which reversed the Decision 2(2) of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8, in Naturalization Case No. 02-102984. Likewise assailed is
the appellate court's Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision.

Antecedents

On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison So filed before the RTC a Petition for
Naturalization 3(3) under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, as amended. He alleged the following in his petition:

He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has lived in
No. 528 Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee, he derives an average
annual income of around P100,000.00 with free board and lodging and other benefits; he is
single, able to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; he is exempt from the filing of
Declaration of Intention to become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, as amended, because he was born in the Philippines, and
studied in a school recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and
culture are taught; he is a person of good moral character; he believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine constitution; he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; he has mingled
socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people; he has all the qualifications provided under Section 2
and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, as amended; he is not
opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who
uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; he is not defending or teaching
the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or
predominance of men's ideas; he is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy;
he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; he is not suffering from any
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 1
 incurable contagious diseases or from mental alienation; the nation of which he is a citizen is not
at war with the Philippines; it is his intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines
and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to China; and he will reside continuously in the
Philippines from the time of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission as citizen of
the Philippines. The petition was docketed as Naturalization Case No. 02-102984. aTcIEH

Attached to the petition were the Joint Affidavit 4(4) of Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr. and
Mark B. Salcedo; and petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth, 5(5) Alien Certificate of
Registration, 6(6) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence. 7(7)

On March 22, 2002, the RTC issued an Order 8(8) setting the petition for hearing at 8:30
a.m. of December 12 and 17, 2002 during which all persons concerned were enjoined to show
cause, if any, why the petition should not be granted. The entire petition and its annexes,
including the order, were ordered published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the
Official Gazette and also in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila. The RTC
likewise ordered that copies of the petition and notice be posted in public and conspicuous
places in the Manila City Hall Building. 9(9)

Petitioner thus caused the publication of the above order, as well as the entire petition and
its annexes, in the Official Gazette on May 20, 2002 10(10) and May 27, 2002, 11(11) and in
Today, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila, on May 25, 2002 and June 1,
2002.

No one opposed the petition. During the hearing, petitioner presented Atty. Adasa, Jr.
who testified that he came to know petitioner in 1991 as the legal consultant and adviser of the
So family's business. He would usually attend parties and other social functions hosted by
petitioner's family. He knew petitioner to be obedient, hardworking, and possessed of good
moral character, including all the qualifications mandated by law. Atty. Adasa, Jr. further
testified that petitioner was gainfully employed and presently resides at No. 528 Lavezares
Street, Binondo, Manila; petitioner had been practicing Philippine tradition and those embodied
in the Constitution; petitioner had been socially active, mingled with some of his neighbors and
had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the
Philippines; and petitioner and his family observed Christmas and New Year and some
occasions such as fiestas. According to the witness, petitioner was not disqualified under C.A.
No. 473 to become a Filipino citizen: he is not opposed to organized government or believes in
the use of force; he is not a polygamist and has not been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude; neither is he suffering from any mental alienation or any incurable disease. 12(12)

Another witness for petitioner, Mark Salcedo, testified that he has known petitioner for
ten (10) years; they first met at a birthday party in 1991. He and petitioner were classmates at the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) where they took up Pharmacy. Petitioner was a member of
some school organizations and mingled well with friends. 13(13) Salcedo further testified that
he saw petitioner twice a week, and during fiestas and special occasions when he would go to
petitioner's house. He has known petitioner to have resided in Manila since birth. Petitioner is
intelligent, a person of good moral character, and believes in the principles of the Philippine
Constitution. Petitioner has a gainful occupation, has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner and has all the qualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 2
 Petitioner also testified and attempted to prove that he has all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines.

At the conclusion of his testimonial evidence, petitioner offered in evidence the following
documents: (1) Certificate of Live Birth; 14(14) (2) Alien Certificate of Registration; 15(15) (3)
Immigrant Certificate of Residence; 16(16) (4) Elementary Pupil's 17(17) and High School
Student's 18(18) Permanent Record issued by Chang Kai Shek College; (5) Transcript of Record
issued by the University of Santo Tomas; 19(19) (6) Certification of Part-Time Employment
dated November 20, 2002; 20(20) (7) Income Tax Returns and Certificate of Withholding Tax
for the year 2001; 21(21) (8) Certification from Metrobank that petitioner is a depositor; 22(22)
(9) Clearances that he has not been charged or convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
23(23) and (10) Medical Certificates and Psychiatric Evaluation issued by the Philippine
General Hospital. 24(24) The RTC admitted all these in evidence.

The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003. 25(25) The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and

declaring that petitioner EDISON SO has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen and he is hereby admitted as citizen of the
Philippines, after taking the necessary oath of allegiance, as soon as this decision becomes
final, subject to payment of cost of P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED. 26(26)

The trial court ruled that the witnesses for petitioner had known him for the period
required by law, and they had affirmed that petitioner had all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. Thus, the court concluded that petitioner had
satisfactorily supported his petition with evidence.

Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), appealed the decision to the CA on the following grounds:

I.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR

NATURALIZATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TWO (2) CHARACTER
WITNESSES, NAMELY: ARTEMIO ADASA, JR. AND MARK SALCEDO WERE NOT
QUALIFIED CHARACTER WITNESSES.

II.

PETITIONER IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE

PHILIPPINES. 27(27)

Respondent contended that based on the evidence on record, appellee failed to prove that
he possesses all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under
Section 4 of C.A. No. 473. It insisted that his two (2) character witnesses did not know him well
enough to vouch for his fitness to become a Filipino citizen; they merely made general
statements without giving specific details about his character and moral conduct. 28(28) The
witnesses did not even reside in the same place as petitioner. 29(29) Respondent likewise argued
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 3
 that petitioner himself failed to prove that he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen because he
did not give any explanation or specific answers to the questions propounded by his lawyer. He
merely answered "yes" or "no" or gave general statements in answer to his counsel's questions.
Thus, petitioner was unable to prove that he had all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications required by law to be a naturalized Filipino citizen. 30(30)

On the other hand, petitioner averred that he graduated cum laude from the UST with the
degree of Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy. He is now on his second year as a medical student
at the UST Medicine and Surgery. He avers that the requirements for naturalization under C.A.
No. 473, as amended by LOI 270, in relation to Presidential Decree Nos. 836 and 1379, had
been relaxed after the Philippine government entered into diplomatic relations with the People's
Republic of China; the requirements were further relaxed when Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139
was signed into law. 31(31) Petitioner pointed out that the petition, with all its annexes, was
published in the official gazette and a newspaper of general circulation; notices were likewise
sent to the National Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Department of Foreign
Affairs, and the OSG. But none from these offices came forward to oppose the petition before
the lower court. 32(32) Petitioner insisted that he has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become Filipino. This was clearly established by his witnesses. HIaSDc

In its Reply Brief, respondent alleged that R.A. No. 9139 applies to administrative
naturalization filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization. It insisted that even in the
absence of any opposition, a petition for naturalization may be dismissed.

In its Decision 33(33) dated August 4, 2005, the CA set aside the ruling of the RTC and
dismissed the petition for naturalization without prejudice. 34(34) According to the CA,
petitioner's two (2) witnesses were not credible because they failed to mention specific details of
petitioner's life or character to show how well they knew him; they merely "parroted" the
provisions of the Naturalization Act without clearly explaining their applicability to petitioner's
case. 35(35) The appellate court likewise ruled that petitioner failed to comply with the
requirement of the law that the applicant must not be less than 21 years of age on the day of the
hearing of the petition; during the first hearing on December 12, 2002, petitioner was only
twenty (20) years, nine (9) months, and twenty five (25) days old, falling short of the
requirement. 36(36) The CA stated, however, that it was not its intention to forever close the
door to any future application for naturalization which petitioner would file, and that it believes
that he would make a good Filipino citizen in due time, a decided asset to this country. 37(37)

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration 38(38) was denied in a Resolution 39(39) dated
November 24, 2005; hence, the present petition grounded on the sole issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF MANILA. 40(40)

In support of his petition, petitioner reiterates the arguments he set forth in the Brief filed
before the CA.

In its Comment 41(41) on the petition, respondent countered that R.A. No. 9139 (which
took effect on August 8, 2001 and where the applicant's age requirement was lowered to
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 4
 eighteen (18) years old), refers only to administrative naturalization filed with the Special
Committee on Naturalization; it does not apply to judicial naturalization before the court, as in
the present case. 42(42) Respondent, through the OSG, avers that its failure to oppose the
petition before the court a quo does not preclude it from appealing the decision of the RTC to
the CA; it is even authorized to question an already final decision by filing a petition for
cancellation of citizenship. 43(43) Lastly, respondent reiterates its argument that petitioner's
character witnesses are not qualified to prove the former's qualifications.

In determining whether or not an applicant for naturalization is entitled to become a

Filipino citizen, it is necessary to resolve the following issues: (1) whether or not R.A. No. 9139
applies to petitions for naturalization by judicial act; and (2) whether or not the witnesses
presented by petitioner are "credible" in accordance with the jurisprudence and the definition
and guidelines set forth in C.A. No. 473.

The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of
a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen. 44(44) Under current and
existing laws, there are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a)
administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to
C.A. No. 473, as amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by
Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien. 45(45)

Petitioner's contention that the qualifications an applicant for naturalization should

possess are those provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and not those set forth in C.A. No. 473 is barren
of merit. The qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial
act are set forth in Sections 2 46(46) and 4 47(47) of C.A. No. 473. On the other hand, Sections 3
48(48) and 4 49(49) of R.A. No. 9139 provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of an
applicant for naturalization by administrative act.

Indeed, R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial measure intended to make the process
of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging. 50(50) It
likewise addresses the concerns of degree holders who, by reason of lack of citizenship
requirement, cannot practice their profession, thus promoting "brain gain" for the Philippines.
51(51) These however, do not justify petitioner's contention that the qualifications set forth in
said law apply even to applications for naturalization by judicial act.

First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws — the former
covers all aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived here in
the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they
were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the
customs and traditions. 52(52) To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No.
9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and
more encouraging which is administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the
legislature believes that there is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines,
there is nothing from which it can be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or
repealed by R.A. No. 9139. What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another
mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 5
 only implication is that, a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative
naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications. DHITSc

In the instant case, petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, though at the time
of the filing of his petition, administrative naturalization under R.A. No. 9139 was already
available. Consequently, his application should be governed by C.A. No. 473.

Second. If the qualifications prescribed in R.A. No. 9139 would be made applicable even
to judicial naturalization, the coverage of the law would be broadened since it would then apply
even to aliens who are not native born. It must be stressed that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to
aliens who were born in the Philippines and have been residing here.

Third. Applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to judicial naturalization is contrary to
the intention of the legislature to liberalize the naturalization procedure in the country. One of
the qualifications set forth in R.A. No. 9139 is that the applicant was born in the Philippines and
should have been residing herein since birth. Thus, one who was born here but left the country,
though resided for more than ten (10) years from the filing of the application is also disqualified.
On the other hand, if we maintain the distinct qualifications under each of the two laws, an alien
who is not qualified under R.A. No. 9139 may still be naturalized under C.A. No. 473.

Thus, absent a specific provision expressly amending C.A. No. 473, the law stands and
the qualifications and disqualifications set forth therein are maintained.

In any event, petitioner failed to prove that the witnesses he presented were competent to
vouch for his good moral character, and are themselves possessed of good moral character. It
must be stressed that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as insurers of the
applicant's conduct and character. Thus, they ought to testify on specific facts and events
justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law. 53(53)

Petitioner's witnesses, Atty. Adasa and Salcedo, did not testify on his specific acts; they
did not elaborate on his traits. Their testimonies do not convince the Court that they personally
know petitioner well and are therefore in a position to vouch for his qualifications. As correctly
found by the CA, the witnesses' testimonies consisted mainly of general statements in answer to
the leading questions propounded by his counsel. What they conveniently did was to enumerate
the qualifications as set forth in the law without giving specific details. The pertinent portion of
Atty. Adasa's testimony follows:

q Do you know the petitioner Edison So?

a Yes, Sir.

q Will you please tell us how did you come to know him?

a Well I came to know him[,] the petitioner[,] when I was the legal consultant and
adviser of their family business and I used to ah (sic) me[e]t him during my visit to
their place way back in 1991 to 1992.

q From that day of 1991 up to the present, is your relationship with the petitioner
more or less contin[u]ous?

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 6
 a Yes, sir, because aside from the usual professional visit that I did to their family
some social function was sponsored normally and I am (sic) invited and I used to
attend.

q During the birthday party of the petitioner, did you usually attend petitioner's
birthday?

a On several occasions I attend the birthday.

q Will you please tell us where the petitioner resides at present?

a At present the petitioner resides at No. 528 Lavezares Street, Binondo, Manila.

q Do you know for how long the petitioner resides in the Philippines?

a As far as I personally known (sic) Your Honor is that since birth.

q During all the times that you have know[n] the petitioner, what is your impression
of his conduct?

a Well ah (sic) I have personally known him to be obedient and hard working
individual and ah (sic) he has a good moral character and he has been ah (sic) no
adverse report concerning the character of the petitioner.

q In your opinion does the petitioner has the qualifications necessary to become
citizen of the Philippines?

a Yes.

q Can you tell us why do you say so?

a I would say Your Honor that petitioner has possess (sic) all the qualifications
mandated by law and presently he is more than 21 years old and he has resided in
the Philippines particularly in the City of Manila contin[u]ously for more than ten
(10) years and that since his birth; and that he has good moral character and I have
observed that ah (sic) he has been practicing Philippine traditions and ah (sic) those
embodied in the Philippine constitution and he has been socially active and meddle
(sic) some of his neighbors and ah (sic) I am sure he has desire to embrace and learn
the customs and ideas and traditions in the Philippine[s] and as I earlier mentioned
that he conducted himself in proper and approachable (sic) manner during his entire
residence in our country and he has a gainful occupation.

q Will you please tell us what are these customs which the petitioner embraced?

a Well I have observed that ah (sic) together with his family they used to ah observed
(sic) the usual Filipino celebration during Christmas and new year and some
occasions such as fiestas.

q And do you know whether petitioner is not disqualified under Commonwealth Act
to become Filipino citizen of the Philippines (sic)?

a Ah there has been no incident or occasion which I learned that would disqualify of
coming (sic) the citizen of the Republic of the Philippines. I have noticed that ah
(sic) he is qualified under Commonwealth Act 473 as amended because he is not
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 7
 opposed to ah (sic) organized government. His family and himself does not believed
(sic) in the use of force in the success of his ideas and ah (sic) he is not a poligamist
(sic) or believer in the practice of illegal and he has not been convicted in any crime
involving him in any crime (sic). and he is not suffering from any mental alienation
or any incurable contidious (sic) disease. as provided for.

q Will you please tell us why you know all these stage?

a Because of ah (sic) the personal attachment with his family we have continuously
having ah (sic) the usual contact with his family. 54(54)

It can thus be inferred that Atty. Adasa is close to petitioner's family, but not specifically
to petitioner. Atty. Adasa's statements refer to his observations on the family's practices and not
to petitioner in particular. Nothing in his testimony suggests that he was close to petitioner and
knew him well enough to vouch for his qualifications.

Salcedo, on the other hand, testified thus:

q Now do you know the petitioner in this case Edison So?

a Yes, Sir.

q Are you personally acquainted with him?

a Yes, Sir.

q How long have you known the petitioner?

a I have known him for about ten (10) years, Sir.

q Will you please inform the Honorable court under what circumstances did you
come to know the petitioner?

a I met him in a birthday party in 1991, Sir.

q And from 1991 up to the present is your relationship with the petitioner more or less
contin[u]ous?

a Yes, Sir.

q How often did you see the petitioner?

a I see him twice a week, Sir.

q And during this time that you met the petitioner, what did you usually do?

a We play some games, Sir. We play Patentero (sic).

q Do you go to church together?

a Yes, Sir.

q During fiestas in your place, did the petitioner go?

a Yes, Sir.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 8
 q How about during fiestas in the place where the petitioner reside[s], did you also go
during fiestas?

a Yes, Sir.

q During occasion in the house of the petitioner, are you invited?

a Yes, Sir.

q How many time[s] did you go to his (sic) residence of the petitioner?

a Twice a week, sir.

q Will you please tell us where the petitioner resides?

a The petitioner resides at 528 Lavezares Street, Tondo, Manila, Sir.

q For how long does the petitioner reside in that address?

a Since birth, Sir.

q During all the times that you have known the petitioner, will you please tell us your
impression of his conduct?

a He is a person of good moral, sir, and he believed in the principles of the

Philippines (sic) Constitution.

q Will you please cite one or two of these principles underlined the principles (sic) of
the Philippines (sic) Constitution?

a Ah the Philippines is a Republican of the (sic) state, sovereignty preside (sic) over
the people and the government authority emanate from within; and the other one is
the civilian government is not supreme over the military.

q Now in your opinion does the petitioner have all the qualifications necessary to
become a citizen of the Philippines?

a Yes, Sir.

q What are these qualifications?

a He is at least 21 years old, he is a person of good moral and has been residing in the
Philippines since birth.

q What else?

a He must be a Filipino and ah must practice the traditions and customs, Sir.

q Do you know whether the petitioner conducted himself in a proper and

appraochable (sic) manner during the period of his residence in the Philippines?

a Yes, Sir.

q Do you know if the petitioner has a gainful occupation?

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 9
 a Yes, Sir.

q What is the occupation of the petitioner?

a Ah (sic) he is the secretary in a wood factory in Commonwealth, Sir.

q And aside from being the secretary, what else did the petitioner do?

a He help (sic) in the factory cargo, Sir.

q Is the petitioner still a student?

a Yes, Sir.

q Where is he studying?

a In UST, Sir.

q Is he your classmate?

a Yes, Sir.

q What was his course?

a Pharmacy, Sir.

q So when you said he was the secretary he only works as part time secretary?

a Yes, Sir.

q You said the petitioner meddle (sic) socially with the Filipinos?

a Yes, Sir.

q Will you please name at least one of those Filipinos the petitioner meddle (sic)
with?

a Samuel Falmera, Sir, Marlon Kahocom, Sir.

q Who else?

a Elmer Ramos, Sir.

q Who else?

a Sharmaine Santos, Sir.

q You said the petitioner is of good moral character?

a Yes, Sir.

q Why do you know that?

a As a classmate I can see him I go with him and ah (sic) I can see that he has ah
better approached (sic) with other people and I can see that he mixed very well with
friends.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 10
 q So during school days you see him everyday?

a Yes, Sir.

q When there are no classes during the vacation you see the petitioner twice a week?

a Yes, Sir.

q Does the petitioner (sic), do you think the petitioner is not disqualified to become
the citizen of the Republic of the Philippines?

a Yes, Sir, he is not disqualified, Sir.

q Why do you say that he is not disqualified?

a Because he abide [by] any law in the government, sir, ah (sic) he is not polygamus
and he is not convicted of any crime, Sir.

q Do you know ever the petitioner oppose to any organized government?

a No, Sir.

q Do you know whether he believe[s] in the use of force in any such ideas?

a No, Sir.

q Do you know if the petitioner is a believer in the practice of polygamy?

a No, Sir.

q Do you know whether the petitioner suffer[s] from mental alienation or incurable
disease illnesses?

a No, Sir.

q Why do you know?

a I know him personally, sir, I have been with him as my classmate, sir and ah (sic)
he is a very intelligent person, Sir.

q Is the petitioner a member also of any organization or association in your school?

a Yes, Sir.

q What organization?

a He is a member of Wishten and a member of starget, Sir.

q What does starget means?

a Starget is an organization of Chinese community in UST, Sir.

q How about the other one which you mentioned? ISHaTA

a Ah (sic) these are twisting, sir he represents the ah the (sic) school intercollegiate,

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 11
 Sir. 55(55)

Again, Salcedo did not give specific details on petitioner's qualifications.

In sum, petitioner's witnesses clearly did not personally know him well enough; their
testimonies do not satisfactorily establish that petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications prescribed by law.

In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own
good moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be
credible persons. 56(56) Within the purview of the naturalization law, a "credible person" is not
only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police
character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or
testimony is not incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person
making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is
known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his
word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the applicant's worthiness. 57(57)

The records likewise do not show that the character witnesses of petitioner are persons of
good standing in the community; that they are honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy
and reliable. The most that was established was the educational attainment of the witnesses;
however, this cannot be equated with their credibility. In fine, petitioner focused on presenting
evidence tending to build his own good moral character and neglected to establish the credibility
and good moral character of his witnesses. 58(58)

We do not agree with petitioner's argument that respondent is precluded from questioning
the RTC decision because of its failure to oppose the petition. A naturalization proceeding is not
a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res
judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the
applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence
even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions
arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate. 59(59) If the government can challenge a
final grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the
reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court.

Thus, petitioner failed to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of
naturalization law. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying the petition for
naturalization without prejudice.

It must be stressed that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the
Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that should not be
conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with the law.
60(60)

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 12
 Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (Chairman), with Associate Justices Edgardo F.
Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; rollo, pp. 51-61.
2. Penned by Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.; id. at 21-23.
3. Rollo, pp. 14-15.
4. Exhibit "M"; records, p. 3.
5. Exhibit "N"; id. at 5.
6. Exhibit "O"; id. at 6.
7. Exhibit "O-1"; id. at 7.
8. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
9. Id. at 17.
10. Vol. 98, No. 20, pp. 2546-2553.
11. Vol. 98, No. 21, pp. 2720-2727.
12. TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 4-13.
13. Id. at 14-29.
14. Exhibit "N"; records, p. 5.
15. Exhibit "O"; id. at 6.
16. Exhibit "O-1"; id. at 7.
17. Exhibit "P"; id. at 83.
18. Exhibit "P-1"; id. at 84.
19. Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3A"; id. at 86-87.
20. Exhibit "Q"; id. at 87.
21. Exhibit. "Q-2"; id. at 90.
22. Exhibit "R"; id. at 91.
23. Exhibits "S," "S-1," "S-2" and "S-3"; id. at 92-95.
24. Exhibits "T" to "T-5"; id. at 97-102.
25. Rollo, pp. 21-23.
26. Id. at 23.
27. Id. at 26.
28. Id. at 38.
29. Id. at 39.
30. Id. at 43.
31. Id. at 46.
32. Id. at 47.
33. Id. at 51-61.
34. The dispositive portion reads:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the decision appealed from must
be, as it is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. The petition for naturalization subject of Case
No. 02-102984 is DISMISSED, without prejudice. No costs.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 61)
35. Id. at 59.
36. Id. at 60.
37. Id.
38. Id. at 62-64.
39. Id. at 65.
40. Id. at 6.
41. Id. at 79-91.
42. Id. at 84-85.
43. Id. at 88-89.
44. RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June 4-5, 2001).
45. R.E. Agpalo, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, 2005 ed., 63-64.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 13
 46. Section 2. Qualifications. — Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following
qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the
petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten
years;
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted
government as well as with the community in which he is living;
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos,
Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal
Philippine languages; and
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools
recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines (now the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports), where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of residence in the
Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of this petition for naturalization as Philippine
citizen.
47. Section 4. Who are disqualified. — The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
(a) Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(b) Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault, or assassination of the success and predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamist or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(f) Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not
mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the Philippines are
at war, during the period of such war;
(h) Citizens or subject of a foreign country other than United States, whose laws do not
grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
48. Section 3. Qualifications. — Subject to the provisions of the succeeding section, any person
desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act must meet the following qualifications:
ISTACE

(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of filing
of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying
principles of the Constitution, and must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his relation
with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any
public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education
Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as
part of the school curriculum and whose enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality;
Provided, That should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them
in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation,
from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 14
 has dependents, also that of his/her family; Provided, however, That this shall not apply to
applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession because
they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of
the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
49. Section 4. Who are disqualified. — The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group
of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault,
or assassination of the success and predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled
socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such
war;
(h) Citizens or subjects whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
50. Sponsorship Speech of the late Senator Cayetano, RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June
4-5, 2001).
51. Id.
52. RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June 4 and 5, 2001).
53. Republic v. Hong, G.R. No. 168877, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 405, 413.
54. TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 6-12.
55. Id. at 16-27.
56. Republic v. Hong, supra note 53, at 421.
57. Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, 103 Phil. 964, 971 (1958); Ong Siao v. Republic, 145 Phil.
143, 149 (1970); Siao Tick Chong v. Republic, 143 Phil. 134, 139-140 (1970).
58. Republic v. Hong, supra, at 422.
59. Republic v. Li Yao, G.R. No. 35947, October 20, 1992, 214 SCRA 748, 752-753.
60. Id. at 754.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 15
 Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)
1. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (Chairman), with Associate Justices Edgardo F.
Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; rollo, pp. 51-61.

2 (Popup - Popup)
2. Penned by Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.; id. at 21-23.

3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Rollo, pp. 14-15.

4 (Popup - Popup)
4. Exhibit "M"; records, p. 3.

5 (Popup - Popup)
5. Exhibit "N"; id. at 5.

6 (Popup - Popup)
6. Exhibit "O"; id. at 6.

7 (Popup - Popup)
7. Exhibit "O-1"; id. at 7.

8 (Popup - Popup)
8. Rollo, pp. 16-17.

9 (Popup - Popup)
9. Id. at 17.

10 (Popup - Popup)
10. Vol. 98, No. 20, pp. 2546-2553.

11 (Popup - Popup)

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 16
 11. Vol. 98, No. 21, pp. 2720-2727.

12 (Popup - Popup)
12. TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 4-13.

13 (Popup - Popup)
13. Id. at 14-29.

14 (Popup - Popup)
14. Exhibit "N"; records, p. 5.

15 (Popup - Popup)
15. Exhibit "O"; id. at 6.

16 (Popup - Popup)
16. Exhibit "O-1"; id. at 7.

17 (Popup - Popup)
17. Exhibit "P"; id. at 83.

18 (Popup - Popup)
18. Exhibit "P-1"; id. at 84.

19 (Popup - Popup)
19. Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3A"; id. at 86-87.

20 (Popup - Popup)
20. Exhibit "Q"; id. at 87.

21 (Popup - Popup)
21. Exhibit. "Q-2"; id. at 90.

22 (Popup - Popup)

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 17
 22. Exhibit "R"; id. at 91.

23 (Popup - Popup)
23. Exhibits "S," "S-1," "S-2" and "S-3"; id. at 92-95.

24 (Popup - Popup)
24. Exhibits "T" to "T-5"; id. at 97-102.

25 (Popup - Popup)
25. Rollo, pp. 21-23.

26 (Popup - Popup)
26. Id. at 23.

27 (Popup - Popup)
27. Id. at 26.

28 (Popup - Popup)
28. Id. at 38.

29 (Popup - Popup)
29. Id. at 39.

30 (Popup - Popup)
30. Id. at 43.

31 (Popup - Popup)
31. Id. at 46.

32 (Popup - Popup)
32. Id. at 47.

33 (Popup - Popup)

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 18
 33. Id. at 51-61.

34 (Popup - Popup)
34. The dispositive portion reads:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the decision appealed from must
be, as it is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. The petition for naturalization subject of Case
No. 02-102984 is DISMISSED, without prejudice. No costs.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 61)

35 (Popup - Popup)
35. Id. at 59.

36 (Popup - Popup)
36. Id. at 60.

37 (Popup - Popup)
37. Id.

38 (Popup - Popup)
38. Id. at 62-64.

39 (Popup - Popup)
39. Id. at 65.

40 (Popup - Popup)
40. Id. at 6.

41 (Popup - Popup)
41. Id. at 79-91.

42 (Popup - Popup)
42. Id. at 84-85.

43 (Popup - Popup)
43. Id. at 88-89.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 19
 44 (Popup - Popup)
44. RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June 4-5, 2001).

45 (Popup - Popup)
45. R.E. Agpalo, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, 2005 ed., 63-64.

46 (Popup - Popup)
46. Section 2. Qualifications. — Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following
qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the
petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten
years;
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted
government as well as with the community in which he is living;
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos,
Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal
Philippine languages; and
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools
recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines (now the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports), where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of residence in the
Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of this petition for naturalization as Philippine
citizen.

47 (Popup - Popup)
47. Section 4. Who are disqualified. — The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
(a) Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(b) Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault, or assassination of the success and predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamist or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(f) Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not
mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the Philippines are
at war, during the period of such war;
(h) Citizens or subject of a foreign country other than United States, whose laws do not
grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 20
 48 (Popup - Popup)
48. Section 3. Qualifications. — Subject to the provisions of the succeeding section, any person
desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act must meet the following qualifications:
(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of filing
of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying
principles of the Constitution, and must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his relation
with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any
public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education
Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as
part of the school curriculum and whose enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality;
Provided, That should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them
in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation,
from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or
has dependents, also that of his/her family; Provided, however, That this shall not apply to
applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession because
they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of
the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.

49 (Popup - Popup)
49. Section 4. Who are disqualified. — The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group
of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault,
or assassination of the success and predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled
socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such
war;
(h) Citizens or subjects whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

50 (Popup - Popup)
50. Sponsorship Speech of the late Senator Cayetano, RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June
4-5, 2001).
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 21
 51 (Popup - Popup)
51. Id.

52 (Popup - Popup)
52. RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June 4 and 5, 2001).

53 (Popup - Popup)
53. Republic v. Hong, G.R. No. 168877, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 405, 413.

54 (Popup - Popup)
54. TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 6-12.

55 (Popup - Popup)
55. Id. at 16-27.

56 (Popup - Popup)
56. Republic v. Hong, supra note 53, at 421.

57 (Popup - Popup)
57. Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, 103 Phil. 964, 971 (1958); Ong Siao v. Republic, 145 Phil.
143, 149 (1970); Siao Tick Chong v. Republic, 143 Phil. 134, 139-140 (1970).

58 (Popup - Popup)
58. Republic v. Hong, supra, at 422.

59 (Popup - Popup)
59. Republic v. Li Yao, G.R. No. 35947, October 20, 1992, 214 SCRA 748, 752-753.

60 (Popup - Popup)
60. Id. at 754.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 22