G.R. No. L-6029 April 12, 1954
Yu Chong Tian, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

The petitioner, Yu Chong Tian, filed an application for naturalization. He alleged he was born in China in 1896, arrived in the Philippines in 1906, and resided continuously for 44 years except for two visits to China. He is married with seven children, manages a business, owns real estate, and speaks English and Tagalog. His petition was supported by the sworn statements of Congressman Jose L. de Guzman and Deogracias Serafica, who attested they had known the petitioner for more than five years. During the hearing, these witnesses testified they had known the petitioner since late 1942, meaning they had known him for less than eight years from the petition’s filing date in June 1950. After the petitioner and his witnesses testified, the petitioner closed his evidence. The Provincial Fiscal filed a written opposition, arguing the petition should be dismissed because it did not comply with the Revised Naturalization Law. Specifically, the sworn statements did not certify that the petitioner had been domiciled in the Philippines for the required continuous period of not less than ten years. When the hearing resumed, the petitioner sought to recall the two witnesses, but the court later allowed him to present two additional witnesses instead, Silvino Salonga and Ponciano Tibacay, who testified they had known the petitioner for more than ten years. The lower court granted the naturalization, prompting the Provincial Fiscal to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in: (1) not declaring the naturalization petition defective and void; (2) allowing the petitioner to present two additional witnesses to cure the defect in the petition after he had closed his evidence; and (3) granting the certificate of naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The petition was void from the outset. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires the petition to be supported by the affidavits of at least two credible citizens who personally know that the applicant has been domiciled in the Philippines for the period required by the law (which is ten years under Section 2). The sworn statements of the original two witnesses, which were an integral part of the petition, only certified they had known the petitioner for more than five years, not the required ten. This rendered the petition insufficient. Following established doctrine, a naturalization petition not verified by at least two competent witnesses as required by law is not merely voidable but void. A competent witness cannot be substituted for an incompetent one after the petitioner has closed his evidence. The defect could not be cured by the subsequent testimony of additional witnesses. The decision was revoked, with costs against the petitioner, without prejudice to him filing a new petition with competent witnesses.