G.R. No. L-17146; July 20, 1962
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF KHO ENG POE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. KHO ENG POE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Kho Eng Poe, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. The Republic, through the Provincial Fiscal, opposed the petition, alleging that petitioner had no religion and that his supporting witnesses had not known him for the required ten-year period. After trial, the lower court granted the petition, finding that petitioner possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications for citizenship. The Republic appealed, but the Solicitor General later moved to withdraw the appeal, finding no sustainable grounds to assail petitioner’s qualifications. The Supreme Court denied the motion and required the Solicitor General to proceed, ultimately submitting the case for decision based on the motion’s allegations.
The lower court’s factual findings established petitioner’s continuous residence since 1938, good moral character, lucrative income, and ability to speak and write English and Tagalog. His two character witnesses testified on his behalf. However, the Supreme Court, upon review of the record, focused on the sufficiency of the witnesses’ testimonies regarding the statutory requirements.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner successfully proved, through the requisite credible witnesses, that he does not possess any of the disqualifications for naturalization under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization. The legal logic centers on the petitioner’s failure to meet the affirmative burden of proof mandated by the Naturalization Law. The Court held that a petitioner must prove two distinct affirmative facts: first, the possession of all qualifications under Section 2 of the law, and second, the non-possession of any disqualification under Section 4. The testimony of the character witnesses was found manifestly insufficient to establish the second requirement.
The Court scrutinized the witnesses’ testimonies. Witness Jose S. Lim merely stated petitioner was not disqualified “because he possesses all the qualifications.” The Court ruled this circular reasoning insufficient, clarifying that possessing qualifications is logically separate from not possessing disqualifications. Witness Jose de la Rosa testified he did not know of any disqualification of the petitioner and listed general disqualifications like subversive activities, but his conclusion was a non-committal “I didn’t think.” This testimony failed to affirmatively demonstrate, based on personal knowledge, the absence of all specific statutory disqualifications in the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner did not satisfy the mandatory evidentiary standard, requiring affirmative proof from at least two credible witnesses on both statutory requirements. The decision was reversed.