G.R. No. L-13496; April 27, 1960
In the matter of the petition of DY SHUI SHENG to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. DY SHUI SHENG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Dy Shui Sheng, born in Amoy, China on October 8, 1927, arrived in the Philippines on July 30, 1937. He filed a petition for naturalization on August 2, 1956, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The petition was supported by affidavits from two character witnesses, Luciano Atillo and Raymundo A. Crystal. The lower court granted the petition. The Republic of the Philippines appealed, contending that the character witnesses did not meet the legal requirement of having known the petitioner continuously for the ten-year period preceding the filing of the petition and that the evidence was insufficient.

ISSUE

1. Whether the two character witnesses were competent, having known the petitioner for the continuous period of ten years required by law prior to the filing of the petition.
2. Whether the evidence adduced by the petitioner was sufficient to sustain the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. On the Competence of the Character Witnesses: The Court found that neither witness could legally vouch for the petitioner’s continuous residence in the Philippines for the required ten-year period prior to the petition’s filing (August 2, 1956).
* Luciano Atillo testified he knew petitioner since 1937 but admitted he lost track of him from 1941 to 1948. Thus, his knowledge was limited to 1937-1941 (4 years) and 1948-1956 (8 years), not a continuous ten-year period.
* Raymundo A. Crystal, a lawyer, testified he knew of the petitioner’s father since 1936/1937 and saw the petitioner in 1940 during alien registration. However, he did not see the petitioner from 1945 to 1948. His testimony, partly based on a leading question and his own belief, did not establish personal knowledge of continuous residence from 1937 to 1956. At best, his knowledge covered 1937-1945 and 1948-1956, which was not continuous.
2. On the Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court held that the witnesses’ testimonies failed to substantiate the specific contents of their affidavits as required by law and jurisprudence. Their statements were general opinions (e.g., “I think the petitioner has a respectable conduct,” “I believe the petitioner is qualified”) and did not provide factual bases to establish the petitioner’s possession of all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Naturalization Law. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that the witnesses themselves were “credible persons” within the meaning of the law—i.e., persons of good standing in the community, honest, upright, trustworthy, and reliable.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization is denied, with costs against the petitioner.