PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF UY TIAN IT (PETER UY LORENZO). UY TIAN IT (PETER UY LORENZO), PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

The review of a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, granting the application for naturalization
of petitioner Uy Tian It,
alias Peter Uy Lorenso, is
sought by the Government, Appellant maintains that the lower court should have
denied said application because: (1) it does not state petitioner’s former
places of residence, in violation of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization
Law; (2) petitioner’s character witnesses are not credible persons; (3)
petitioner has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner; and
(4) lie is deficient in writing English and the national language.

Upon review of the record we find
that the appeal is well taken.

Petitioner’s attesting witnesses
were Severino Santos and David S. Cabreira.
The first is an employee of the Equitable Banking Corporation who testified
that he met the petitioner in 1949, when he (Santos) purchased a gift from the
store, at Echague Street, Manila, where petitioner
was then working; that since then he (Santos) bought gifts many times from
petitioner herein in said store; that in 1955 he (Santos) became the manager of
the branch office of the Bank in Quiapo, Manila, near
the store then owned by petitioner, who opened a deposit account in said branch
office; and that owing to petitioner’s transactions with, the Bank in
connection with his deposit therein, and to further purchases of gifts that
Santos had thereafter made in said store, as well as to their contacts in some
social gatherings, Santos felt he could express the view that petitioner had
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relations with
the constituted government and with the community in which he is living.

The same assertion was made by Dr.
David S. Cabrera, a medical examiner of the Manila Police Department, who
allegedly knew the petitioner since 1948 and had contacts with him, like
Santos, as buyer of gifts, who, had, also, been in some social affairs attended by the petitioner.

As an applicant for naturalization,
it is incumbent upon petitioner to establish satisfactorily that he had
“conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is
living”, as required in Section 2, third paragraph, of Commonwealth Act
No. 473. This requirement has not been sufficiently met. To begin with,
petitioner’s residence in the Philippines began in 1946, whereas his
attesting witnesses came to know him only in 1948 and 1949,
respectively. Moreover, their knowledge of petitioner was based upon
their contact with him as buyers of gifts, aside from meeting with him in some
parties. Then, too, they believed that his conduct had been irreproachable
mainly because they did not know of any untoward act committed by petitioner or
of any criminal charge filed against him. Apart from the fact, that this
circumstance does not affirmatively establish such irreproachable conduct, the
nature of the relations between, the petitioner and his attesting witnesses was
not such as to qualify the latter to make a competent assessment of his moral
character, and much less to vouch for the same.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
reversed and the petition hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.