GR L 10642; (May, 1958) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-10642; May 30, 1958
ALFREDO ONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Alfredo Ong filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which was granted. The Republic of the Philippines appealed. The appeal centered on the sufficiency of the affidavits of two credible persons, Primo Alvez and Miguel Relampagos, attached to the petition as required by Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (The Naturalization Law). Alvez’s affidavit stated he was a citizen, a former police officer and current lawyer, had known Ong since he first came to Cebu, and knew him to be hardworking, law-abiding, highly respected, and a credit to the community. Relampagos’s affidavit stated he was a citizen and an accountant, had personally known Ong for many years, and that Ong was a man of good moral character, honest, and law-abiding. The Solicitor General argued these affidavits were deficient for not containing all the specific averments mandated by law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the affidavits of the two credible persons attached to the petition for naturalization substantially complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, and if not, whether the deficiencies were cured by the testimonial evidence presented during the hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The affidavits were found insufficient as they failed to state explicitly: (1) that the affiants personally knew the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period required by law; (2) that the petitioner was morally irreproachable; (3) that the petitioner had all the qualifications necessary for citizenship; (4) that the petitioner was not in any way disqualified under the law; and (5) in Relampagos’s case, that the petitioner was a person of good repute. The Court held that knowing a person for “many years” or since he arrived in a province is not equivalent to knowing him to be a resident for the requisite period. Descriptions like “highly respected” or “good moral character” do not meet the specific statutory standards of “good repute” and “morally irreproachable.” Furthermore, the law requires an affirmative endorsement that the petitioner possesses all qualifications and none of the disqualifications; mere silence on disqualifications is insufficient. The Court also ruled that the deficiencies were not cured by the witnesses’ testimonies during the hearing. The affiants themselves must testify to establish the eight specific points required by law, including their personal knowledge of the petitioner’s residency, good repute, moral irreproachability, possession of all qualifications, and absence of all disqualifications. The testimonies of Alvez and Relampagos failed to establish these points adequately; for instance, they did not testify that Ong was “morally irreproachable,” only that he was of “good” moral character, and their knowledge of his qualifications and lack of disqualifications was found to be insufficiently detailed and conclusive. The purpose of the affidavit requirement is to have the petitioner sponsored by credible citizens who warrant his fitness, and their sworn statements and subsequent testimony are a condition precedent to the petition’s consideration.