G.R. No. L-10200; April 18, 1958
Dy Tian Siong, petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Dy Tian Siong, born in Manila on August 22, 1922, of Chinese parents, filed a petition for naturalization. He presented evidence, including his own testimony, that he had resided in the Philippines since birth except for three trips abroad, was a merchant and partner in Dy Tian and Co., finished first year high school, speaks and writes English and Tagalog, believes in the principles underlying the Constitution, is not a polygamist, and had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire residence. In support, affidavits from two witnesses, Balbino Lim and Margarito de la Rosa, were submitted, stating they had personal knowledge that the petitioner was of good repute and morally irreproachable. However, during his testimony, witness Margarito de la Rosa stated he had come to know the petitioner only in 1940, when the petitioner was 18 years old. The trial court denied the petition, holding that this witness did not have sufficient personal knowledge of the petitioner for the period required by law and that the petitioner had been charged with a violation of an ordinance, which case was only provisionally dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner presented sufficient evidence, particularly through his witnesses, to prove that he conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, as required by the Naturalization Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition. The Court held that under Section 2, paragraph 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Revised Naturalization Law), a petitioner must prove he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence. While the affidavits of the witnesses contained the required statements, the testimony of witness Margarito de la Rosa revealed he only knew the petitioner personally from 1940 onward. Therefore, he could not testify to the petitioner’s conduct during the petitioner’s entire residence, which dated from his birth in 1922. The record also failed to show that De la Rosa had any knowledge of the petitioner’s conduct prior to 1940. The petitioner’s own general testimony on this point was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. Consequently, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence of his qualifications for naturalization.