GR L 7836; (October, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7836 October 25, 1955
Gervacio Cabrales Cu, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Gervacio Cabrales Cu filed an application for Philippine citizenship in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, which was granted. The applicant was born on June 2, 1919, in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, to a Chinese father (Cu Tim Cu) and a Filipino mother (Inocencia Cabrales) before her marriage. He has resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty-three years, works as a merchant with an average annual income of P900, is married to a Filipino woman (Encarnacion Diniega), and has four children, two of whom are enrolled in a public school. He speaks and writes English and Tagalog. The Solicitor General appealed the decision, assigning three errors.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court erred in finding the petitioner is a citizen of the Nationalist Government of China, with which the Philippines has reciprocity laws.
2. Whether the lower court erred in considering the petitioner’s good moral character based on the testimony of only one witness from the two affidavits submitted.
3. Whether the lower court erred in finding the appellee entitled to Philippine citizenship and granting his petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant failed to prove he is a citizen of Nationalist China. While prior decisions recognized Filipinos could acquire Chinese citizenship, China had since split into Nationalist and Communist governments. The applicant’s mere statement of not believing in communism was insufficient. He was required to present official documents, such as his Alien Certificate of Registration, to establish his citizenship under the Nationalist Government.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that the lower court erred in considering the affidavits of good moral character when only one of the two signers testified in court. Following the precedent in Karam Singh (G.R. No. L-7567), both signers should testify if available to be subject to examination and test their veracity.
3. The third issue was a consequence of the first two. The petition was denied without prejudice to the filing of a new application with proper evidence. No costs were awarded.