So v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edison So, a Chinese citizen born in Manila, sought to become a naturalized Filipino citizen. He alleged he had resided in the Philippines since birth, possessed a gainful occupation with an annual income of approximately P100,000.00, was single, and could speak and write English, Chinese, and Tagalog. He claimed to be exempt from filing a Declaration of Intention due to his birth in the Philippines and education in a government-recognized school teaching Philippine history, government, and culture. So asserted he had good moral character, believed in the Philippine Constitution's principles, conducted himself irreproachably, mingled socially with Filipinos, and desired to embrace their customs and ideals. He stated he possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, including not being opposed to organized government, not advocating violence, not being a polygamist, not having been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, and not suffering from incurable diseases or mental alienation. He intended in good faith to become a Philippine citizen and renounce allegiance to China, promising continuous residence until admission. Procedural History: Petitioner Edison So filed a Petition for Naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8, on February 28, 2002. The RTC ordered the publication of the petition and notice of hearing, and set the hearing for December 12 and 17, 2002. No one opposed the petition. Petitioner presented witnesses Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr. and Mark Salcedo, who testified regarding his qualifications and good moral character. Petitioner also testified and presented various documents, including his birth certificate, alien certificates, school records, employment certifications, income tax returns, bank certifications, clearances, and medical certificates. The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003, declaring Edison So qualified for admission as a Filipino citizen. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the character witnesses were not qualified and that the petitioner failed to prove his qualifications. The CA reversed the RTC's decision and dismissed the petition for naturalization without prejudice, citing the lack of credibility of the witnesses and the petitioner's failure to meet the age requirement at the time of the hearing. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Edison So filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. The sole issue raised is whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing the Regional Trial Court's decision that granted his petition for naturalization. Petitioner reiterates his arguments presented before the CA, asserting that he met all the requirements for naturalization. The respondent, the Republic of the Philippines, countered that Republic Act No. 9139, which lowers the age requirement, applies only to administrative naturalization and not to judicial naturalization. The respondent also argued that its failure to oppose the petition in the lower court did not preclude it from appealing the decision, and reiterated its stance that the character witnesses were not qualified. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether R.A. No. 9139 applies to judicial naturalization and whether the witnesses presented were credible.
Issue(s)
Whether Republic Act No. 9139 applies to petitions for naturalization by judicial act. Whether the character witnesses presented by the petitioner were credible and qualified to vouch for his fitness for naturalization.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for naturalization without prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Republic Act No. 9139 applies to petitions for naturalization by judicial act: The Court held that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139, which pertains to administrative naturalization, does not apply to judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473. The qualifications and disqualifications for judicial naturalization are explicitly laid out in Sections 2 and 4 of C.A. No. 473, while R.A. No. 9139 provides separate qualifications and disqualifications for administrative naturalization. The Court emphasized that R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial measure to make the process less tedious and more encouraging, specifically for native-born aliens, and it did not amend or repeal C.A. No. 473. Therefore, an applicant for naturalization by judicial act must strictly adhere to the provisions of C.A. No. 473. The petitioner's contention that the qualifications under R.A. No. 9139 should apply was deemed barren of merit, as applying its provisions to judicial naturalization would broaden its coverage beyond the legislature's intent. The Court reiterated that C.A. No. 473 stands unless expressly amended. On whether the character witnesses presented by the petitioner were credible and qualified: The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that his witnesses, Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr. and Mark Salcedo, were competent to vouch for his good moral character and were themselves possessed of good moral character. The testimonies of both witnesses consisted mainly of general statements, enumerating the qualifications set forth in the law without providing specific details or events that would demonstrate how well they knew the petitioner. Atty. Adasa's testimony focused more on his observations of the petitioner's family's practices rather than the petitioner's specific conduct. Salcedo's testimony, while mentioning some social interactions and shared activities, lacked the depth required to establish personal knowledge of the petitioner's character. The Court reiterated that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings act as insurers of the applicant's conduct and character, and their testimonies must be based on specific facts and events. The Court concluded that the witnesses did not personally know the petitioner well enough to vouch for his qualifications, and their educational attainment did not equate to credibility. The Court also clarified that the government is not precluded from appealing a naturalization decision even if it did not oppose the petition before the lower court, as naturalization proceedings are not strictly adversary and certificates of naturalization can be cancelled if obtained by misleading the court.
Main Doctrine
An applicant for naturalization by judicial act must comply with the qualifications and disqualifications set forth in Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, and not those under Republic Act No. 9139, which pertains to administrative naturalization. Furthermore, character witnesses in naturalization proceedings must be credible persons who can testify on specific facts and events justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law.