G.R. No. L-18068; October 30, 1962
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION TO BECOME CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, ANTONIO GO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Antonio Go filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. The Solicitor General opposed the petition. The lower court granted Go’s petition, prompting the Republic to appeal the decision. The government raised several grounds for reversal, including non-compliance with statutory publication requirements, the alleged incompetence and lack of credibility of Go’s character witnesses, and Go’s lack of the requisite qualifications for naturalization.
The Supreme Court focused its examination on the issues concerning the character witnesses and Go’s qualifications. The character witnesses presented were Governor De Lara and Henry Canoy. Governor De Lara’s testimony revealed a lack of sufficient personal knowledge about Go, as he admitted that some information in his affidavit was supplied by Go himself, making it hearsay. His testimony also contained factual inaccuracies regarding Go’s education and employment. The other witness, Henry Canoy, was not affirmatively shown by the record to meet the high standard of being a “credible person” as required by jurisprudence.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the character witnesses presented by Antonio Go were competent and credible as required by law, and (2) whether Go possessed all the qualifications for naturalization, particularly a lucrative trade or profession and good moral character.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition for naturalization. On the first issue, the Court found the character witnesses insufficient. Governor De Lara did not possess the requisite personal knowledge of the material facts concerning Go’s qualifications and disqualifications, as his knowledge was based on hearsay and was factually contradicted by other evidence. Regarding Henry Canoy, the record failed to affirmatively establish that he was a “credible person” within the meaning of the Naturalization Law, which requires a witness of good standing in the community who is honest, upright, trustworthy, and reliable, essentially acting as an insurer of the applicant’s character.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Go failed to prove he had a lucrative trade or profession. His claimed monthly income, even with free board, was deemed insufficient given the reduced purchasing power of the currency, as established in prior cases. Furthermore, his plan to stop working to study medicine undermined the stability of his income. The Court also cast serious doubt on his moral character due to inconsistencies in his declarations. He gave conflicting statements about being a business operator versus a salaried employee, and his official documents listed his occupation as a student, contradicting his testimony about his income. His failure to pay corresponding income or residence taxes further belied his income claims. These inconsistencies directly affected the requisite finding of good moral character. The petition was dismissed.