Title
So vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 170603
Decision Date
Jan 29, 2007
Edison So, a Chinese citizen born in Manila, sought naturalization under C.A. No. 473. The RTC granted his petition, but the CA reversed it, citing insufficient evidence and age requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, ruling So failed to meet legal standards, emphasizing strict compliance in naturalization cases.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170603)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Petition for naturalization filed before the RTC on February 28, 2002; hearings set for December 12 and 17, 2002; RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003; CA reversed and dismissed the petition on August 4, 2005; CA denied motion for reconsideration on November 24, 2005; Supreme Court rendered final disposition in the present petition by denying review (petition for review on certiorari), affirming the CA.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Governing constitutional framework applied in this decision: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the Court’s decision date is post‑1990). Statutory and regulatory authorities governing naturalization in the case: Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) — Sections 2 (qualifications) and 4 (disqualifications); Republic Act No. 9139 (administrative naturalization statute); and references to Presidential Decrees (Nos. 836 and 1379) as they relate to related amendments and implementation.

Facts Alleged by Petitioner

Petitioner averred he was born in Manila on February 17, 1982; is a Chinese citizen who had continuously resided in the Philippines since birth; is single, able to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; has a gainful occupation with approximate annual income of P100,000 plus benefits; had received schooling in institutions where Philippine history/government/culture were taught; and intends, in good faith, to renounce allegiance to China and to reside continuously in the Philippines upon admission as a citizen. Petitioner submitted documentary evidence (birth certificate, Alien Certificate of Registration, Immigrant Certificate of Residence, school records, employment and tax documents, bank certification, clearances, and medical/psychiatric evaluations) and presented two character witnesses.

Evidence Presented and Witness Testimony

Petitioner presented two witnesses: Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr. (family legal consultant) and Mark Salcedo (classmate). Atty. Adasa testified to a long acquaintance with the petitioner’s family since ca. 1991–1992, observed family practices (Filipino holidays and fiestas), and gave general statements about the petitioner’s obedience, industriousness and good moral character. Salcedo testified to knowing the petitioner since 1991, seeing him frequently (claimed twice weekly), being a classmate at University of Santo Tomas, and offering primarily general statements about petitioner’s social mingling, academic life and non‑disqualifying conduct. The RTC admitted documentary exhibits and granted the petition on June 4, 2003, concluding petitioner had satisfactorily proven qualifications and absence of disqualifications.

Grounds of Appeal by the Republic (CA)

The Republic appealed, asserting two primary grounds: (1) the two character witnesses were not qualified or credible to vouch for petitioner’s character because their testimony was general, lacking specific instances or details; and (2) petitioner did not meet statutory qualifications, including an age requirement (Section 2 of C.A. No. 473 requires the applicant to be at least 21 years of age on the day of the hearing), because petitioner was only 20 years, nine months and twenty‑five days old at the first hearing (December 12, 2002). The Republic also argued R.A. No. 9139 (which reduced some requirements and lowered age in the administrative context) does not apply to judicial naturalization.

CA Ruling — Reasoning and Disposition

The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the petition without prejudice. The CA found the character witnesses lacked credibility and did not provide specific factual testimony sufficient to vouch reliably for petitioner’s qualifications. The CA also held petitioner had not satisfied the age requirement under C.A. No. 473 at the time of hearing. The CA nevertheless expressed that its dismissal was not intended to bar a future application once petitioner satisfies statutory requirements.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the dispositive issues for resolution: (1) whether R.A. No. 9139 applies to judicial petitions for naturalization under C.A. No. 473; and (2) whether petitioner’s witnesses were credible and sufficient under the standards of C.A. No. 473 and jurisprudence to establish petitioner’s qualifications and absence of disqualifications.

Supreme Court on the Applicability of R.A. No. 9139 vs. C.A. No. 473

The Court held that R.A. No. 9139 and C.A. No. 473 are distinct statutes addressing different modes of naturalization: R.A. No. 9139 governs administrative naturalization (a remedial, liberalized, administrative route intended primarily for native‑born aliens residing in the Philippines since birth), while C.A. No. 473 governs judicial naturalization for all aliens generally. The Supreme Court reasoned that absent an express amendment or repeal, R.A. No. 9139 does not alter the qualifications and disqualifications of judicial naturalization under C.A. No. 473. Applying R.A. No. 9139’s relaxed standards to judicial petitions would inappropriately broaden its coverage beyond its intended class (native‑born aliens) and undermine the legislative choice to preserve separate procedures and qualifications. Accordingly, petitioner’s judicial application was governed by C.A. No. 473.

Supreme Court on Witness Credibility and Evidentiary Requirements

The Supreme Court emphasized that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings function as insurers of the applicant’s moral character; they must testify to specific facts and events that justify the inference the applicant meets the statutory qualifications and lacks statutory disqualifications. The Court found that petitioner’s witnesses mainly recited statutory qualifications and gave generalized impressions without concrete, personal observations about petitioner’s conduct sufficient to establish credibility. Atty. Adasa’s testimony reflected familiarity with the petitioner’s family rather than detailed, personal knowledge of petitioner’s specific acts and character; Salcedo’s testimony similarly consisted largely of general statements. The Court reiterated established precedent that credibility is tied to personal standing and reputation in the community and that the applicant bears the burden of proving both his own good moral character and the credibility of his witnesses. Under these standards, petitioner failed to prove his entitlement to naturalization.

Supreme Court on the Government’s Right to Appeal or Challenge Naturalization Grants

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the Republic’s failure to oppose the petition at trial precludes appellate or subsequent contestation. It reaffirmed that naturalization proceeding

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms