G.R. No. L-7871 October 29, 1955
In the matter of the petition to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. LEON PE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Leon Pe filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Antique. His petition alleged that Delfin Encarnacion and Perpetuo Lotilla would appear and testify as his witnesses. Affidavits from both Delfin Encarnacion and Perpetuo Lotilla were attached to the petition. At the hearing, only Delfin Encarnacion testified. Perpetuo Lotilla was not put on the witness stand. Instead, the petitioner presented Higino Loza as his other witness. Higino Loza’s affidavit, dated the same day as the affidavits of the two named witnesses, was contained in the record. The lower court granted the petition for naturalization. The Republic appealed, contending that the lower court erred because only one of the two character witnesses named in the petition testified.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in granting the petition for naturalization despite the petitioner presenting only one of the two character witnesses named in his petition, substituting the testimony of the other named witness with that of a different witness (Higino Loza) whose affidavit was in the record but whose name was not set forth in the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the law was substantially complied with. The Court distinguished the cited cases of Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines and Yu Chong Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines. In this case, Higino Loza was a vouching witness whose affidavit was part of the record, and the fiscal did not object to his presentation but instead cross-examined him. The failure to set forth his name and address in the petition was not fatal, as his affidavit supported the petition and he testified at the hearing. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.