G.R. No. L-37480. December 26, 1974.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, EUGENIO TIU, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Eugenio Tiu filed a petition for naturalization as a Filipino citizen with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The trial court, presided by Judge Valerio V. Rovira, rendered a decision on September 30, 1972, granting Tiu’s petition. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General filed the appellant’s brief on June 8, 1974, and a copy was received by appellee Eugenio Tiu on June 18, 1974. Despite this, Tiu failed to file his appellee’s brief within the prescribed period. As of the date of the Supreme Court’s decision, no brief had been submitted by Tiu in defense of the trial court’s judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should affirm the trial court’s grant of naturalization to Eugenio Tiu despite his failure to file an appellee’s brief and the apparent defects in his petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied Eugenio Tiu’s application for naturalization. The legal logic is anchored on two primary grounds: the substantive deficiencies in the petition and the procedural consequence of Tiu’s failure to defend the grant of citizenship on appeal.
First, the Court noted substantive flaws in the record. The trial court failed to make a crucial finding that Tiu’s character witnesses properly vouched for his belief in constitutional principles, moral irreproachability, and embrace of Filipino customs and ideals—indispensable prerequisites for naturalization. Furthermore, the verification of the petition itself was fatally defective, as it was made merely on “knowledge, information and belief” rather than on personal knowledge as required.
Second, and decisively, the Court emphasized the procedural burden on an applicant. Naturalization is a privilege, and the burden of proof rests continuously on the applicant to establish his right thereto. This duty extends not only to the trial proceedings but also to defending the favorable judgment on appeal. By failing to file his appellee’s brief, Tiu abandoned his cause and did not discharge this continuing burden. The Supreme Court ruled it would not perform the applicant’s task of reviewing the evidence and arguing its legal sufficiency sua sponte. Such failure to file a brief constitutes a waiver of the right to defend the judgment and is treated as a concession that the appeal is meritorious. Therefore, the decision was reversed, and the application was denied and dismissed.