G.R. No. L-15919. May 19, 1961.
Calvin K. Lo, petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Calvin K. Lo filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Manila. His petition was supported by the affidavits of two character witnesses: Julian S. de Guia, a former secretary and accountant, and Francisco V. Alfonso, a stock clerk, both of the Keyser Mercantile Co., Inc., where Lo served as assistant manager. After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The court based its denial on three grounds: Lo’s failure to state his former places of residence in the petition, his failure to allege the approximate date of his arrival and his port of debarkation in the Philippines, and the biased and unreliable nature of his character witnesses. Lo’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
On appeal, Lo argued that the deficiencies in his petition regarding residence and arrival details were cured because he presented evidence on these matters during the hearing without objection from the government. He contended that the trial court should not have dismissed his petition on these technical grounds. Furthermore, he challenged the court’s assessment of his witnesses as biased.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the petitioner’s failure to allege in his petition his former places of residence and the details of his arrival constitutes a fatal defect not curable by subsequent evidence; and (2) Whether the trial court correctly discredited the petitioner’s character witnesses for bias.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the omissions were fatal. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law expressly requires the petition to set forth the petitioner’s present and former residences, the approximate arrival date, and the port of debarkation. The purpose of this mandatory requirement is to inform the public and government investigative agencies through publication, giving them a meaningful opportunity to investigate and voice any objections to the application. Presenting evidence on these points at the hearing does not cure the omission, as it deprives the public and the state of the prior notice intended by the law. The clearances obtained by the petitioner do not eliminate the risk that disqualifying clues might have been missed due to the lack of proper publication.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the character witnesses were biased and unreliable. The witnesses were subordinates of Lo in the same company; one was a former subordinate and the other was a current employee recommended by Lo. The Court agreed that such witnesses, being under the petitioner’s moral and economic influence, could not testify with the requisite independence of mind. Sound policy demands that character witnesses be trustworthy and possess sufficient knowledge to act as moral insurers of the applicant, a standard these witnesses could not meet. Therefore, the decision of the lower court was affirmed.