GR 22151; (March, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22151 March 30, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, SIAO TICK CHONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Siao Tick Chong, a Chinese citizen born on December 27, 1918, in Quemoy, China, filed a petition for naturalization on August 8, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He arrived in the Philippines in 1936 and resided at various addresses in Manila and Iligan City. He was employed as a salesman, engaged in business, and became a partner in Kim San Company with an investment of P45,000. He married Lo Eh Biao, a Chinese woman, in 1948, and they had six children. He filed his declaration of intention on June 23, 1960, and presented various clearances and a medical certificate. His character witnesses were Flaviano R. Pacheco and Abelardo J. Basilio. The Solicitor General opposed the petition on grounds of insincerity and the witnesses’ failure to prove his proper conduct and qualifications. The trial court initially denied the petition on March 14, 1963, but upon motion for reconsideration, reopened the case, received additional evidence, and granted the petition. The Republic appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the character witnesses presented by the petitioner are “credible persons” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, competent to vouch for the petitioner’s good reputation and irreproachable conduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court granting the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the petitioner failed to affirmatively establish that his character witnesses, Flaviano R. Pacheco and Abelardo J. Basilio, were “credible persons” as required by law. A “credible person” must be of good standing in the community, trustworthy, reliable, and possess intimate knowledge of the petitioner to competently vouch for his qualifications and lack of disqualifications. Pacheco’s testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the petitioner’s residence and did not explain the regular frequency of their meetings. Basilio lacked knowledge of the petitioner’s reputation in Iligan City and mentioned an unalleged residence in Cebu. Their testimonies were insufficient as they appeared to be mere acquaintances without the requisite intimate knowledge. Therefore, the legal requirement for at least two credible witnesses was not satisfied.