Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > December 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16825 December 22, 1961 - IN RE: CHUA PUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16825. December 22, 1961.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHUA PUN baptized as LEONCIO SY PENG BEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

Jose A. Uy for Petitioner-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; CHARACTER WITNESSES; APPLICANT MUST BE PROVED ON THE STAND TO BE MORALLY IRREPROACHABLE. — Apart from allegations in their affidavit to the effect, witnesses for an applicant for naturalization should prove at the trial that the applicant is morally irreproachable (Ong, v. Republic, 103 Phil., 964; 55 Off. Gaz., [18] 3290; Dy Shui Sheng, v. Republic 107 Phil., 718; 58 Off. Gaz., [14]-2704) not merely that he is a "very good" or a "law abiding person."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER THAT A PERSON MAY BE DEEMED CREDIBLE. — "Within the purview of the Naturalization Law, a ‘credible’ person is, to our mind, not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who has not perjured in the past; or whose ‘affidavit’ or testimony is not incredible. What must be ‘credible’ is not the declaration made, but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner. . . . (Ong v. Republic, supra Dy Shui Shen v. Republic, supra; Sy Ang Hoc. v. Republic, 111 Phil., 473; 58 Off. Gaz., [34] 5629.)


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying the petition of Chua Pun to be admitted to Philippine citizenship.

The pertinent part of the trial court’s decision follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Under Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473, it is required that, in their supporting affidavit, the character witnesses must state, among other things, that they know the petitioner to be a person of good repute and ‘morally irreproachable.’ In his testimony, character witness Felicisimo Trinidad testified that the conduct and reputation of the petitioner as a resident of the country is ‘very good’, while the other character witness, Constancia Aranda, testified, when asked about the character and reputation of the petitioner, that the latter is a ‘law-abiding citizen’.

It is to be noted that during the hearing, none of the character witnesses testified that the petitioner is ‘morally irreproachable; much less did any one of them testify on specific facts to show that the petitioner is ‘morally irreproachable’. It may be stated that it is not sufficient that the character witnesses should state in their affidavit that the petitioner is ‘morally irreproachable’. Neither is it sufficient for them simply to affirm on the witness stand the truth of the contents of their affidavit. Considering that the law requires that in the affidavit of witnesses the latter must assert that the petitioner is personally known to them to be ‘morally irreproachable;’, it follows, as an inevitable corollary, that such assertion or statement must be established on the witness stand by the testimony of the affiants themselves. In short, it is necessary that there be proof, through the testimony of two credible witnesses whose affidavits are attached to the petition, that they personally know the petitioner to be morally irreproachable. (Ong v. Republic, 55 O. G. 3290.)

It is not sufficient to establish that the contract [conduct] and reputation of the petitioner in the community is ‘very good’ and that the said petitioner is a ‘law-abiding citizen’. The law requires moral character of the highest order on the part of the petitioner. In short, it is essential that the character witnesses must establish, through their testimony in court, that the petitioner is ‘morally irreproachable’. This, the witnesses of the petitioner in the present petition have failed to do. Hence, the court is of the opinion that the second ground relied upon by the Government in its opposition is well-taken."cralaw virtua1aw library

A review of the record convinces us that this appeal is untenable. Apart from allegations in their affidavit to that effect, petitioner’s witnesses should prove at the trial that the applicant is morally irreproachable (Ong v. Republic, L-10642, May 30, 1958; Dy Shui Sheng v. Republic, L-13496, April 27, 1960), not merely that he is a "very good" or a "law-abiding" person. As found by the trial court, however, not only have the applicant’s witnesses failed to state categorically that applicant is morally irreproachable, but they failed to establish specific facts and events from which to infer that irreproachability. Moreover, since the law requires proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines (Section 2, par. 3, Com. Act 473), the evidence falls far short when only two witnesses are presented who came to know applicant only in 1945 and 1940 respectively (see Di Tian v. Republic, L-10200, April 18, 1958), and who were, therefore, in no position to testify as to applicant’s conduct from the time he arrived in the Philippines on October 2, 1924. Needless to say, it takes much more than the uncorroborated assertions of applicant himself to establish this vital fact. Even within the span of time that the two witnesses allegedly have known the applicant, it is not convincingly shown that the nature of their association with the applicant was such as to keep them reasonably posted on his qualifications (cf. Deetuanka v. Republic, L-12981, January 29, 1960; Chan Chen v. Republic, L-13370, October 31, 1960). As a customer who merely takes his merienda in the applicant’s soda fountain, the witness Felicisimo Trinidad has not shown himself to be sufficiently familiar with the personal circumstances and background of the applicant to vouch for his character; and the fact that Trinidad, being in charge of rental collections for Roces Hermanos, may have had contact with their tenants (one of whom is the applicant) did not, of itself, qualify him to testify about appellant’s character and conduct.

Without casting aspersion on the personal integrity of appellant’s witnesses, we have noted that the record has not proven them to be the "credible persons" referred to in the Naturalization law.

"Within the purview of the Naturalization Law, a ‘credible’ person is, to our mind, not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose ‘affidavit’ or testimony is not incredible. What must be ‘credible’ is not the declaration made, but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner. . . ." (Ong v. Republic supra; Dy Shui Sheng v. Republic, L-13496, April 27, 1960; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, L-12400, March 24, 1961).

The applicant-appellant quotes American authorities on the sufficiency of proof as to "good moral character." These authorities are not pertinent, since our law requires "morally irreproachable character" which is, as correctly observed by the trial court, a much higher standard.

WHEREFORE, the judgment under appeal denying naturalization is affirmed, with costs against Petitioner-Appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15264 December 22, 1961 - GARCIA SAMSON v. RAMON ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15763 December 22, 1961 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16806 December 22, 1961 - SERGIO DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16825 December 22, 1961 - IN RE: CHUA PUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16950 December 22, 1961 - SIMEON T. GARCIA v. ARTURO B. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-18054 December 22, 1961 - CITY OF BUTUAN v. HON. JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19168 December 22, 1961 - ANSBERTO P. PAREDES v. ROSALIND B. ANTILLON

  • G.R. No. L-16173 December 23, 1961 - PASCUALA R. VITO v. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16992 December 23, 1961 - ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-8748 December 26, 1961 - ISABEL B. VDA. DE PADILLA v. CONCEPCION PATERNO

  • G.R. No. L-15365 December 26, 1961 - ASUNCION FRANCISCO, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18128 December 26, 1961 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16600 December 27, 1961 - ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL v. LEONORA FABRIGAR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-12996 December 28, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-14337 December 28, 1961 - AGAPITO TRIA, ET AL v. PEDRO ZABALLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14823 December 28, 1961 - ANACLETA BARILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15013 December 28, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15091 December 28, 1961 - GENOVEVA CATALAN PAULINO, ET AL v. PAZ H. PAULINO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15798 December 28, 1961 - JOSE P. TECSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16359 December 28, 1961 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-16563 December 28, 1961 - Z. E. LOTHO, INC. v. ICE & COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17066 December 28, 1961 - IN RE: CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON v. PHIL. NAT’L., BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17135 December 28, 1961 - MANILA CORDAGE CO. v. HON. MAGNO GATMAITAN, ETC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17196 December 28, 1961 - TEODORICO B. SANTOS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17237 December 28, 1961 - GREGORIA BARTOLO v. PRIMO G. MALIWANAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17535 December 28, 1961 - H. G. HENARES & SONS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17661 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL TIBERIO v. MANILA PILOTS ASSO.

  • G.R. No. L-17687 December 28, 1961 - JANUARIO L. JISON, SR. v. IGNACIO DEBUQUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17690 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL DIVINAGRACIA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MLA., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17934 December 28, 1961 - ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION v. HON. JUDGE MANUEL ESTIPONA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17937 December 28, 1961 - COMMUNITY SAWMILL CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-13254 December 30, 1961 - CALIFORNIA LINES INC. v. AMPARO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13415 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BOLLENA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14814 December 30, 1961 - EARNSHAWS DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. PEDRO GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 1-14999 December 30, 1961 - NARIC WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15436 December 30, 1961 - EUSEBIO G. DIMAANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15759 December 30, 1961 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL v. MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-15812 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RACCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15901 December 30, 1961 - ALIPIO GONZALES v. Hon. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16106 December 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PNB, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16124 December 30, 1961 - ESPERANZA FERNANDEZ v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16381 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO FAUSTO Y TOMAS

  • G.R. No. L-16486 December 30, 1961 - SHIU SHUN MAN v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-16746 December 30, 1961 - REXWELL CORP. v. DOMINADOR P. CANLAS

  • G.R. No. L-16988 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17061 December 30, 1961 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ANGEL DIMAGIBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17068 December 30, 1961 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17400 December 30, 1961 - EPIFANIA M. CUENCA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

  • G.R. No. L-17477 December 30, 1961 - POLO FIANZA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17669 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LONGENOS PEÑAFIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17883 December 30, 1961 - RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, ETC. v. AMADO DIMAYUGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-18734 December 30, 1961 - GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.