GR L 15858; (July, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15858; July 31, 1962
Dy Lam Go, petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, opponent-appellee.
FACTS
Dy Lam Go appealed the dismissal of his petition for naturalization by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court denied his application solely on the ground that he failed to prove he had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire residence in the Philippines, as required by Section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law ( Commonwealth Act No. 473 ). The court found that, aside from this specific deficiency, the appellant had otherwise shown he possessed all the necessary qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioner successfully proved his proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, as mandated by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, denying the petition. The legal logic centers on the strict evidentiary requirements for proving good moral character under the naturalization law. While Section 7 of the law requires two credible witnesses to attest to the applicant’s good repute and moral irreproachability, this testimony must cover the “entire period of residence.” The Court clarified that for an applicant who arrived in the Philippines as an infant, the period of infancy or early childhood—when one is not yet conscious and responsible for their conduct—is not included within this requisite period. However, for the period following childhood, the applicant must still provide competent evidence of irreproachable conduct.
The Court held that such proof is not limited to the testimony of the two vouching witnesses; it can be corroborated by other competent evidence, such as the absence of any derogatory police or court records. In this case, the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to meet this burden for the requisite period. Consequently, lacking this essential proof, a reversal of the lower court’s decree was unjustified. The denial of the petition was therefore affirmed, with costs against the appellant.