G.R. No. L-22216 January 30, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BENJAMIN ANG @ BEN ANG LIAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, BENJAMIN ANG @ BEN ANG LIAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On July 22, 1960, petitioner-appellee Benjamin Ang filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After publication, the court set the petition for hearing. Appellee presented his evidence, including the testimonies of his character witnesses Marcial Valenzuela, Manuel Paloma, and Eliseo Vivar on various dates from July 13, 1961, to June 25, 1962. Appellee himself also testified and then rested his case. On March 14, 1963, an NBI senior agent testified for the State. Subsequently, on May 24, 1963, the Solicitor General moved to recall character witness Manuel Paloma for additional cross-examination, which the court granted. The hearing for Paloma’s recall was initially set for June 14, 1963, but due to lack of notification, it was moved to July 19, 1963, and then again to September 20, 1963, because of Paloma’s illness. However, on September 12, 1963, before the scheduled hearing, appellee filed a motion to withdraw his petition for naturalization without prejudice, on the ground that his character witnesses failed to vouch for his character and attest to the merits of his petition. The Solicitor General opposed the motion, contending that the hearing should be completed and a final judgment on the merits rendered, or if dismissed, it should be with prejudice. The trial court granted the motion for withdrawal without prejudice, prompting the Republic to appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the withdrawal of the petition for naturalization without prejudice.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court. It held that whether to allow the withdrawal, and if so, whether with or without prejudice, was a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The Court further reasoned that even if the case had been terminated with a final judgment denying the petition, such judgment would not constitute a bar to the renewal of the petition, provided the petitioner subsequently acquired all the qualifications and had none of the disqualifications provided by law, as established in prior jurisprudence (Yu Lo vs. Republic, Sy Kiam vs. Republic, Ng vs. Republic, and Sy Chut vs. Republic). Therefore, the trial court committed no reversible error. The order was affirmed without costs.
