G.R. No. L-21333; January 31, 1966
YU AN KIONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated June 22, 1960, which adjudged petitioner Yu An Kiong entitled to naturalization as a Filipino citizen, and from the order of the same court dated April 5, 1963, allowing him to take his oath of allegiance. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic, appealed, assigning seven errors. The trial court found petitioner’s character witnesses, Jose B. Ramos and Pedro B. Reyes, competent. Ramos knew petitioner since 1947 as a tutor, visiting his house three times a week, and described him as a good and honest boy. Reyes knew petitioner since his 12th birthday party through friendship with petitioner’s father, socialized with him, but had not met petitioner’s siblings and did not know his reputation in the community. Petitioner’s application stated his present residence as 425 San Fernando, Manila, and former residence as 908 San Nicolas Street, Manila. However, exhibits revealed he also resided at 827 San Fernando, Manila, and 1045 Folgueras, Manila, as shown in income tax returns and statements of assets and liabilities for 1958-1961.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in granting petitioner’s naturalization, specifically regarding: (1) the competency and credibility of his character witnesses; and (2) his compliance with the requirement to disclose all former and present residences under Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and order, denying the petition for naturalization.
1. On the character witnesses: The Court held that the character witnesses were not “credible witnesses” as required by the naturalization law. Their acquaintance with petitioner was insufficient to competently vouch for his good moral character and irreproachable conduct during his entire residence in the Philippines. Both witnesses knew petitioner only through periodic visits or social interactions, and they admitted having no knowledge of his reputation in the community where he lived. This did not satisfy the legal standard established in Chan Pong vs. Republic of the Philippines.
2. On the disclosure of residences: The Court found that petitioner failed to state all his former and present addresses in his application, as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The application only mentioned 425 San Fernando and 908 San Nicolas Street, but evidence showed he also resided at 827 San Fernando and 1045 Folgueras, Manila. This omission was deemed a fatal defect, consistent with prior rulings.
Therefore, the petition for naturalization was denied.