G.R. No. L-20310; April 30, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SAW CEN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. SAW CEN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Saw Cen, a citizen of the Republic of China, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila on August 29, 1961. He had been in the Philippines since 1932. The petition was accompanied by a joint affidavit from three character witnesses (Jose S. Tanchoco, Jose S. Zuñiga, and Gregorio R. Viar) who claimed personal knowledge of his residency since 1949 and 1946, respectively, and attested to his good moral character. The petition was published as ordered by the court. After trial, the lower court granted the petition for naturalization on August 2, 1962. The Republic appealed, contending that the lower court erred in finding the petitioner qualified and in not holding that his character witnesses did not meet legal requirements. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the petitioner had previously used an alias, “Tan Hu Chi,” for a number of years, which name was not included in the publication of his petition. His first five children used “Tan” as their family name. The petitioner admitted he stopped using the alias over ten years prior because he knew it was prohibited by law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the publication of the petition was fatally defective for not including the petitioner’s alias, thereby affecting the court’s jurisdiction.
2. Whether the character witnesses presented by the petitioner met the legal requirements to be considered “credible persons.”

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. On the publication defect: The Court ruled that the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s alias (“Tan Hu Chi”) in the publication of the petition was fatal. The publication was incomplete and insufficient, as it deprived anyone who knew him by that alias from coming forward with information relevant to his application. This defect affected the court’s jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition.
2. On the character witnesses: The Court found that the character witnesses did not measure up to the legal requirements of being “credible persons.” Specifically, for witness Jose S. Tanchoco, evidence was lacking to show he had the requisite good standing in the community, honesty, trustworthiness, and reliability. His relationship with the petitioner was merely on a business level (he was the accountant for companies managed by the petitioner), with no evidence of intimate social relations. Tanchoco did not know details of the petitioner’s family or social life, and his status as an employee raised concerns of partiality. The Court cited precedents (Ong vs. Republic, Cu vs. Republic, Sy Shin vs. Republic) defining a credible person and the role of witnesses as insurers of the applicant’s character.