G.R. No. L-12279; June 30, 1959
ROMULO QUA, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Romulo Qua, a citizen of the Nationalist Republic of China, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He alleged he was born in Manila on May 28, 1917, to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, and had resided continuously in the Philippines. He was single, employed as a salesman earning P300 a month, and had acquired knowledge of English through private tutoring. The trial court denied his application. The court found his evidence of birth in the Philippines—a certificate from the Local Civil Registrar stating its records did not contain his name and testimony from a witness—insufficient, as it considered the record of birth the best evidence. The court also cited a strong objection from the Philippine Army Headquarters, which denied him a G-2 clearance “in the interest of National Security” due to unfavorable information and suspicion of subversive activities. The evidence indicated that during his G-2 clearance investigation, he offered P5.00 to an investigating officer, which was interpreted as an attempt to expedite the proceeding. Petitioner testified to his continuous residence, knowledge of Philippine government principles, social mingling with Filipinos, adoption of their customs, rejection of polygamy and force, and good faith intention to become a citizen. He presented various clearance certificates from multiple government agencies. After denial, he filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, including affidavits from individuals attesting to his loyalty, his service with the Manila Police Department and U.S. Army CIS after rigorous screening, and his guerrilla activities during the war, to counter the subversion suspicion.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying Romulo Qua’s petition for naturalization based on (1) insufficient proof of his birth in the Philippines and (2) the objection from the Philippine Army based on suspicion of subversive activities without specific factual support.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order and remanded the case for new trial. On the first issue, the trial court erred in ruling that the birth of the petitioner in Manila could not be established without a certificate of record of birth. Citing precedents (Chua Guan Tan vs. Republic and Victoriano Yap Subieng vs. Republic), the Court held that birth could be sufficiently proven by the petitioner’s own testimony corroborated by other documentary evidence, such as his Alien Certificate of Registration and Native Born Certificate of Residence. His continuous residence of over 30 years also exempted him from filing a declaration of intention. On the second issue, the Court held that a petition for naturalization cannot be denied based on mere suspicion from the Armed Forces. If suspicions of subversive activities are based on facts, they should be placed on record to allow the petitioner an opportunity to examine and refute them. The G-2 agent and an Army captain testified to the petitioner’s supposed subversive activities but refused to specify details, claiming confidentiality and security reasons. The Court found the petitioner’s evidence impressive, including multiple clearance certificates from various government agencies and satisfactory knowledge of the Philippine government. Regarding the P5.00 incident, the petitioner claimed it was for food, not a bribe, and no prosecution ensued. Given the newly discovered evidence presented in the motion for new trial—affidavits attesting to his loyalty, wartime guerrilla service, and U.S. government employment—the case was remanded to allow both parties to present further evidence.