G.R. No. L-9843; April 23, 1957
In the matter of the petition of MANUEL YU TONG, alias KUANG TZE YOUNG alias MANUEL YU, alias MANUEL YOUNG to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. MANUEL YU TONG SU, alias KUANG TZE YOUNG, alias MANUEL YU, alias MANUEL YOUNG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

The petitioner-appellee, Manuel Yu Tong Su, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The trial court granted the petition, finding that the petitioner possessed all the qualifications required by law. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision, raising only one specific ground for opposition. The government did not dispute that the petitioner would otherwise qualify, except for the alleged incompetence or disqualification of one of the petitioner’s character witnesses, Ricardo Dorotheo. The government contended that Dorotheo lacked sufficient knowledge of the petitioner’s neighborhood life and conduct to competently testify about his character.
Witness Ricardo Dorotheo testified that he had known the petitioner since 1935 or 1936 because the petitioner was a classmate of his son at San Carlos College. His son used to bring the petitioner to their house many times, and on those occasions, Dorotheo had the opportunity to converse with and observe the petitioner’s conduct. His son finished his A.B. degree five years prior, and the association between his son and the petitioner lasted until about three years ago when his son went to work in Bacolod. Dorotheo stated his personal belief that the petitioner would be an asset to the country, that he is a law-abiding resident, and that he appreciates his friendship. The qualifications of the other witness who testified regarding the petitioner’s conduct were not disputed by the government.

ISSUE

Whether or not the witness, Ricardo Dorotheo, was competent and qualified to testify as to the petitioner’s good moral character and irreproachable conduct, given that his knowledge was primarily based on the petitioner’s visits to his house rather than continuous observation in the neighborhood.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, granting the petition for naturalization. The Court held that Ricardo Dorotheo was a competent and qualified character witness.
The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s argument that Dorotheo could not have sufficiently observed the petitioner’s conduct in the neighborhood to gauge his reputation and moral irreproachability. The Court reasoned that the witness’s testimony that the petitioner “would make an asset to the country” and is a “law-abiding resident” implied a positive judgment on the petitioner’s moral reputation. The Court further explained that knowledge of a person’s moral conduct in a community is often derived from reputation rather than solely from direct, continuous observation. The fact that the witness had not seen the petitioner on all occasions did not disqualify him. If the petitioner had been unworthy, such information would likely have reached the witness through others in the community. Therefore, the witness possessed the necessary qualifications to testify regarding the petitioner’s character. Costs were imposed de oficio.