IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. KWAN KWOCK HOW, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC Of THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Government from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac, Fourth Judicial District (in its Naturalization
Case No. 65), declaring petitioner Kwan Kwock How entitled to be
admitted as a citizen of the Philippines.

The principal controversy centers on the sufficiency of the
allegations in the petition and the affidavits of the supporting
witnesses. Telesforo G. Espinosa and Justito M. Lenon. The government
insists that the allegations are insufficient to justify the Court’s
acting on the petition.

With regard to the supporting witnesses, their joint affidavit
attached to the petition is to the following effect (Rec. Appeal, pp.
5-6) :

“Joint Affidavit

We, Telesforo G. Espinosa and Justito M. Lenon, both
of legal age, married, Filipino, and residents of Tarlac, Tarlac, under
oath, depose and say:

That we are Filipino citizens -who have been residing at Tarlac, Tarlac, for over twenty-five (25) years;

That
we have known Kwan Kwock How since his childhood to he a hardworking,
law-abiding, God-fearing person, who is and has always been, a credit
to the community in which he lives;

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands at Tarlac, Tarlac, this 6th day of June, 1960.

	(Sgd.) Telesforo Q. Espinosa
			Affiant
		(Sgd.) Justito M. Lenon
				Affiant”

The law (section 7, Commonwealth Act No. 473) requires that every
petition for naturalization must be supported by the affidavit of at
least two (2) credible persons stating that (1) they are citizens of
the Philippines; (2) that they personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act; (3) that he is a person of good repute; (4) morally irreproachable; (5) that petitioner has, in their opinion, all the qualifications necessary to be a citizen of the Philippines; and (6) is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of the Act.

A comparison of these requirements with the facts stated in the
affidavit of the certifying witnesses attached to the petition reveals
the’ insufficiency of the latter. Not only because to have known
petitioner since childhood is too vague a statement to satisfy the
statutory requirement that the witnesses must have known the applicant
to be a resident of the Philippines far the period
prescribed, but principally because the witnesses1 opinion that he is a
“hardworking, law-abiding, God-fearing person” and “a credit to the
community” does not meet the requirement about certification that the
applicant is “of good repute” (which primarily means the opinion of the
community about him, not just the opinion of two individuals), and can
not be deemed equivalent to knowing applicant to be “morally
irreproachable”. As to petitioner’s possessing the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications demanded by the law, the affidavit of the
witnesses is silent.

A comparison with the affidavits held insufficient by this Court in Pidelo vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 632; and in Ong vs.
Republic, 55 Off. Gaz., 3290, readily shows that the affidavit of the
supporting witnesses in the present case is equally, if not more,
deficient.

This non-compliance with the statutory requirements relative to the
contents of the annexes to the petition for naturalization renders the
same void (In re Robert Cu, 89 Phil., 473 decided on July 18, 1951:
Pidelo vs. Republic, ante; Ong vs. Republic, ante, and cases cited therein; U.S. vs. Martorana, 171 Fed. Rep., 397). In the Ong case, this Court ruled as follows:

” * * * * Similarly, the affiants must attest that petitioner is “morally irreproachable,” not merely good. Moreover, the affidavits must show affirmatively
that petitioner has all the requisite qualifications and is “not in
anyway disqualified” to become a naturalized citizen. Failure to
disclose the existence of any disqualification is not enough If it
were, then the affidavits could be totally dispensed with. Our Naturalization Law demands, not only a showing in the petition,
that the applicant has all the necessary qualifications and none of the
aforesaid disqualifications, but, also, that the, petition and its
aforementioned allegations be backed up by two (2) “credible” citizens of the Philippines, who affirmatively indorse said petition and warrant the truth
of its allegations, as well as the worthiness of the applicant to be an
integral part of our body politic. Such indorsement arid warranty are a
condition precedent to the consideration of the petition. They are entirely distinct and different, and, in a way, independent, from the question whether, after due notice and hearing, the court should render judgment granting the petition, in. the light of the evidence of record. Said condition refers to the pleadings or procedure. The judgment deals with the merits of the case, and affects the substantive rights of the petitioner.” (55 Off. Gaz., pp. 3292-3293).

The contention of the applicant that the deficiencies in this
witnesses’ affidavit was cured by the testimony of the witnesses at the
trial is of no value, considering that the fiscal precisely objected to
such curative testimony. This objection distinguishes the case at bar
from that of Yu Yao vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 328.

The Solicitor General likewise points out that the petition itself
fails to aver all the facts that the law requires to be specified,
particularly those required in section 7, and those specified in the
later portion of paragraph 12 of the official form, to wit: That the
applicant will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of
the filing of his application up to the time of his admission to
citizenship (see. 7, Comm. Act 473) ; that he associates and mingles
socially with Filipinos, and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos.

Petitioner-appellee practically admits these deficiencies, but contends that the objections were not raised in the court below.

This defense is unavailable. Petitions for naturalization involve
the public interest; hence, on appeal, the entire record is open to
scrutiny, whether objection is made or not. Naturalization being a
privilege and not a right, the burden is on the applicant to show
clearly that he has complied with every condition that the law imposes.

Another serious objection against the appellee is the fact that he
was shown to have been baptized as “Alipio Koan” (Exh. U), yet the
application fails to Mention this alternative name. As a result, the
notices published likewise omit it, only mentioning the Chinese
appellation of Kwan Kwock How. As this Court has ruled in the case of
Yu Seco vs. Republic, 108 Phil. 807, this defect is fatal,
because persons who might have derogatory information against Alipio
Koan might not come forward with it in the belief that applicant Kwan
Kwock How was a different person, thus defeating the avowed purpose of
the law in requiring the publication of the application, i.e., “so that
those who may know of any legal objection to it might come forward with
the information in order to determine the fitness of petitioner for
Philippine citizenship” (Ng Bui Kui vs. Republic, 104 Phil., 957).

It is no excuse that applicant-appellee should have testified as follows:

“Court: Did you use the name Alipio Koan in your business transaction?

A: No sir, I never used it.”

since his non-user of the baptismal name in business transactions
does not preclude his having used it for other purposes, and derogatory
information against the applicant that would bar him from citizenship
is not limited to misconduct in connection with business practices.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed,
and the application dismissed. Costs against applicant-appellee.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.