G.R. No. L-9107 - IN RE: Lui vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9107)

Factual Background

Petitioner filed his application for naturalization on May 23, 1951. From the outset, it was supported by the joint affidavit of two vouching witnesses, Facundo Buot and Enemesdo Dabon, as reflected in the record. Public notice of the hearing was published in the Official Gazette and in the newspaper “La Prenza” for the required statutory period, as evidenced by exhibits marked J, K, K-1, K-2, and K-3. The case then underwent various postponements and was eventually set for hearing on February 2, 1955.

At the hearing, the trial court found, based on the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, that petitioner was born in Cebu City on August 3, 1930, was baptized in Cebu on February 9, 1935, and held an Alien Residence Certificate and an Alien Registration Certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration. The evidence also showed that petitioner had resided in the Philippines since birth and had never left the country; that he completed elementary and secondary education in local schools, ultimately obtaining a Bachelor of Science in Commerce; and that while he was not legally required to undergo compulsory military training, he nevertheless submitted to such training. The trial court further found that petitioner was the assistant manager of the Rizal Lumber Company in Cebu City, that he could speak and write English and the Cebu Visayan dialect, that he had never been convicted of any crime, and that he was not suffering from any contagious or loathsome disease. The record also established that petitioner had not previously filed any naturalization petition and that he desired to become a Filipino citizen because he was born and educated in the Philippines, had mingled socially with Filipinos, and preferred Filipino customs and traditions. It likewise showed that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and recited portions of it during the witness stand.

On the testimonial side, Facundo Buot, a checker, testified that he knew petitioner when petitioner’s parents lived on Martires Street from 1920 to 1935, and that even after 1935 he continued seeing petitioner through social activities such as fiestas and baptismal parties. He stated that petitioner possessed good moral character and, in his opinion, would make a good Filipino citizen.

The second original vouching witness, Enemesdo Dabon, died on October 25, 1951. At the hearing, counsel presented in his stead Asuncion Perez Vda. de Dabon, the widow of Dabon. Mrs. Dabon testified that she knew petitioner’s parents since 1920 and petitioner since his birth as neighbors on Martires Street in Cebu City. She stated that petitioner was a good person, had no convictions, mingled with Filipinos, and had conducted transactions with her business in lumber purchases. She likewise expressed the opinion that petitioner would be a suitable Filipino citizen.

The trial court also recorded that, despite continuances granted for the fiscal to await a report of the National Bureau of Investigation, the fiscal did not submit such report and therefore submitted the case for the Government without evidence, although he filed a formal opposition dated February 14, 1955. The opposition relied on the contention that Mrs. Asuncion Perez Vda. de Dabon was not qualified to testify as a vouching witness because she was not one of the original witnesses who signed the supporting affidavit.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court held that petitioner’s application and qualifications were “amply supported” not only by testimonial evidence but also by documentary evidence. It found that petitioner possessed all the qualifications enumerated in Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535, and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of the statute.

The only remaining question, according to the trial court, was whether petitioner was entitled to citizenship under the existing application in view of the fiscal’s attack on Mrs. Dabon’s competency to testify. The trial court treated the opposition as anchored on Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which required that a petition for citizenship be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons who must be Philippine citizens, must personally know the petitioner as a resident for the required period, and must be of good repute and morally irreproachable, and who must attest to petitioner’s qualifications and lack of disqualification.

The trial court addressed the Government’s invocation of the earlier case Roberto Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-3018, July 18, 1951. It noted that Cu was not controlling because of “radical factual differences.” In Cu, an incompetent vouching witness was withdrawn after the Government objected to continued testimony, and the Court had held that a petition not properly verified by at least two Philippine citizen witnesses was void and could not be amended; it also indicated that a competent witness could not be substituted for an incompetent one. The trial court stressed that, unlike Cu, the present case involved a qualified vouching witness who could no longer testify due to death. It held that the widow who replaced him was competent because the rule allows witnesses at final hearing to be different from those who signed the petition; moreover, if the named witnesses could not be produced, the applicant could summon others, subject to the court’s ability to order measures necessary for government investigation into their qualifications, character, and credibility.

Having ruled that Mrs. Dabon was a competent witness and that petitioner otherwise met the statutory requirements, the trial court admitted petitioner Esteban Lui (Kiong) to Filipino citizenship. It further ordered that, after the decision became final, petitioner could take the corresponding oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, preparatory to the issuance of a certificate of naturalization.

Issues Raised on Appeal

On appeal, the Government through the Solicitor General argued that the lower court erred (1) in allowing petitioner to substitute one of his subscribing witnesses with another, and (2) in failing to declare such substitution invalid as not being in accordance with law. The Solicitor General further contended that these errors warranted reversal of the lower court’s grant of citizenship.

Arguments and Resolution by the Court

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision without pronouncement as to costs. The Court treated the grounds invoked on appeal as essentially the same as those presented in opposition before the trial court. It expressly adopted the trial court’s view that the opposition’s reliance on Roberto Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines was misplaced due to tenable distinctions.

The Court reasoned that, in the instant case, the affidavit of the supporting witnesses Facundo Buot and Enemesio Dabon was attached to the application when filed on May 23, 1951, and that the vouching witness Dabon died on October 25, 1951, so he could no longer testify when the hearing commenced on February 2, 1955. It held that petitioner could not have chosen a better substitute than Dabon’s widow because Mrs. Dabon was presented as a competent witness who knew petitioner and attested to his moral character and civic suitability.

Further, the Court stated that the rule does not require the witnesses at the final hearing to be the same as those who signed the petition, and that the applicant is not limited to the witnesses whose names appear in the posted notice. The Court emphasized that when the listed witnesses cannot be produced, the applicant may summon others, while the court may order appropriate steps to allow government investigation into the substitute witnesses’ qualifications, character, and credibility.

The Court added that the statutory text itself supported the trial court’s conclusion. It referred to Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, stating that the petition must be filed in the applicant’s own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, and further that the petition must set forth the names and post office addresses of the witnesses petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing. From this, the Court inferred that the witnesses introduced at hearing were not circumscribed to the two persons who supported the petition’s filing affidavit. Although these other witnesses must be mentioned in the petition, the Court viewed the inability to present one of the named witnesses as a circumstance petitioner could not reasonably anticipate. It noted that petitioner had no reason to suspect that Enemesio Dabon would die, particularly since the hearing was delayed due to pos

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9107)

The case involved the appeal of the Government from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitting petitioner Esteban Lui (Kiong) to Philippine citizenship and ordering that, after finality, he could take the oath of allegiance preparatory to issuance of a certificate of naturalization.
Esteban Lui (Kiong) appeared as petitioner and appellee, while the Republic of the Philippines appeared as oppositor and appellant.
The decision under review affirmed the trial court’s grant of citizenship and rejected the Government’s challenge to the substitution of a vouching witness.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The Solicitor General appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the petitioner’s naturalization.
The appeal raised as primary grounds that the trial court erred in allowing substitution of a subscribing witness and in failing to declare such substitution invalid as allegedly not in accordance with law.
The Court reviewed the trial court’s findings on the record, and it treated the appeal grounds as essentially the same as those advanced in the trial court opposition.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision without pronouncement as to costs.

Key Factual Allegations

The petitioner filed his application for naturalization on May 23, 1951 and it was supported by the joint affidavit of vouching witnesses Facundo Buot and Enemesdo Dabon.
Notices of hearing were published in the Official Gazette and in the newspaper “La Prenza” for the statutory period, as shown by Exhibits J, K, K-1, K-2, and K-3.
The hearing schedule included postponements, and the application came up for hearing on February 2, 1955.
The trial court found that the petitioner was born in Cebu City on August 3, 1930, and that he was baptized in Cebu City on February 9, 1935.
The trial court found that the petitioner held an Alien Residence Certificate and an Alien Registration Certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration.
The trial court found that the petitioner was single and without any children, and that he had resided in the Philippines since birth and had never left the country.
The trial court found that the petitioner studied in local schools through the relevant grades, including finishing Bachelor of Science in Commerce, and it noted that he undertook military training even though it was not required for him.
The trial court found that the petitioner was then the assistant manager of the Rizal Lumber Company, with a stated investment and monthly salary.
The trial court found that the petitioner could speak and write English and the Cebu Visayan dialect.
The trial court found that the petitioner had never been convicted of any crime and had no contagious or loathsome disease.
The trial court found that he had never filed any prior petition for naturalization.
The trial court found that the petitioner expressed a desire to become Filipino, based on being born and educated in the Philippines, social mingling with Filipinos, and affinity for Filipino customs and traditions.
The trial court found that the petitioner believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and recited portions thereof on the witness stand.
The trial court found that he was not a member of the Cebu Chinese Chamber of Commerce, notwithstanding his continuing status as a Chinese citizen.
The vouching witness Facundo Buot testified to knowing petitioner from early life through 1935 and thereafter, to petitioner’s good moral character, and to the view that he would make a good Filipino citizen.
The vouching witness Enemesdo Dabon died on October 25, 1951, and counsel for petitioner presented in his stead the widow, Asuncion Perez Vda. de Dabon, to testify at the hearing.
The widow’s testimony included her knowledge of petitioner and petitioner’s family from neighbor relations, petitioner’s good character, absence of convictions, mingling with Filipinos, and her business transactions with petitioner.
The fiscal did not present any report from the National Bureau of Investigation, and after the Government filed a formal opposition, the matter proceeded despite the absence of such report evidence.

Statutory Framework

The core statutory issue involved the requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as referenced by the trial court.
Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 required that a petition for citizenship be signed in the applicant’s own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, who were Philippine citizens and who personally knew the petitioner for the period required, among other representations on qualifications and moral character.
The trial court’s analysis treated the Government’s challenge as grounded on the mandatory nature of the supporting affidavits under Section 7.
The Supreme Court invoked section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, emphasizing that the law specifically provides that the petition shall set forth the names and post office addresses of witnesses the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing.
The Court inferred from that provision that the witnesses introduced at the hearing were not strictly limited to the two supporting witnesses in the petition, although the petitioner had to designate witnesses in