IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHUA BENG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

The Solicitor General seeks
the review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the
petition for naturalization of appellee, Chua Beng.

The records before us
show that the petition should have been dismissed because:

1.  Petitioner’s attesting
witnesses were Hermenegildo V. Lopez, a practicing
lawyer, residing in Caloocan
City, and Anastacio
S. Bagaporo, an employee of Dy
Pac Lumber Co.  None of them has been
shown to meet the conditions essential to be “credible persons,” as the term is used in Section 7 of the
Naturalization Law, and elucidated in Ong vs.
Republic, L-10642 (May 30, 1958).^[1]

In fact, not even their
testimony is credible, owing to the flaws therein pointed out by appellant and
referred to in the decision appealed from. 
Thus, Atty. Lopez would have us believe that he met the petitioner in
the premises of the New Manila Lumber Company in 1946, because the former had
made, through the latter, three (3) big orders of lumber, in connection with
the construction of his (Lopez’) house in Tondo, Manila.  This assertion was proven to be false, for
petitioner was then residing in Pagsanjan, Laguna,
and did not establish himself in Manila until June, 1947, or work with said company
until 1948.  Moreover, petitioner – who
is a machinist-mechanic – testified that he had never handled the sale of
lumber or participated therein, he having limited himself to attending to the
repair of machines.

Upon the other hand, in a
seeming attempt to impress upon the Court that he was well acquainted with the
petitioner, Bagaporo testified that he had met every
member of the former’s family, including his father,
somewhere in Asuncion Street, Manila.  It
turnout, however, that petitioner’s father had died in China, in 1938, long before Bagaporo
had met the petitioner.  When this
circumstance came to light, Bagaporo tried to
extricate himself by saying that the person he met at Asuncion Street might have been petitioner’s father-in-law;
but, this cannot be true, for the latter had died before his daughter
and petitioner were married.

Although the lower court
attached little significance to the foregoing circumstances, we consider the
same sufficiently important to cast doubt upon the veracity of said witnesses
and the credibility of their testimony.

2.  While petitioner was testifying
in the lower court, his counsel asked him to write down, on a piece of paper,
first, in English, and, then, in Tagalog, the reason
why he wanted to become a Filipino citizen. 
Petitioner was unable to do so,
and stated, by way of explanation, that he had had no practice therefor.  Thereupon,
his counsel moved for continuance, alleging that, in his opinion, his
client was “nervous at the moment.” When the hearing was resumed, over
a month later, counsel reiterated his aforementioned request.  Forthwith, petitioner wrote on Exhibit T,
with a firm hand, a fairly good and clear penmanship, and a correct spelling:

“I want to become a Filipino citizen because I have resided in
the Philippines for a long time.  And I
like to live here permanently.  I have my
family in the Philippines.  And I like
the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos.  I like the form government in the
Philippines.”

“Gusto kong maging
Pilipino dahil matagal na akong nakatira
dito sa Pilipinas.  At gusto ko nang tumira dito
ng pirmihan.  narito sa Pilipinas ang
aking pamilya.  na gustohan ko mga
ugali at katangian ng mga Pilipino gusto ko rin ang
uri ng pamahalaan
ng bayang Pilipino.”

Immediately, thereafter,
counsel for the government asked the petitioner to write, on another piece of
paper, these words: “the sun is shining and the weather is fine,” as
well as its translation in Tagalog.  This is what petitioner wrote:

“Thae sun is sring
and the wht feru“

“Ang
ardor at ng nanara sa.”

Both are meaningless, and
so the lower court found it.  In fact, it
subscribed to the observation made by counsel for the government with respect
to the preparation of Exhibit T. His Honor, the trial Judge said:

“x x x It must
equally be admitted, out of candor, that petitioner had difficulty in writing
English when first required to do so by his own counsel, but afforded another
opportunity, he was able to writ in English and Tagalog,
as evidenced by Exhibit T, although, in the words of counsel for the oppositor, ‘it is not a surprise that the petitioner was
able to write down a longer dictation given by his counsel.  He must have been drilled and practiced on
the sample dictated to him and consequently he was able to write them down more
on tote memory rather than an actual appreciation thereof.’ This Court is
inclined to subscribe to the observation just quoted, since when petitioner was
asked by counsel for the oppositor to write down the
sentence ‘The sun is shining and the weather is fine,’ and petitioner’s
translation thereof into Tagalog, the result is
something that is not readable and has hardly any meaning (Exhibit 2).”

It is thus obvious that petitioner does not sufficiently know the Filipino language (Tagalog) – the only local dialect he seemingly speaks –
either to write it or make a fairly accurate translation, into said language,
of the simple sentence given by counsel for the government.  It would appear, also, that neither does he
reasonably speak English – much less write the same.  In short, he lacks one of the requisite
qualifications to be naturalized as citizen of the Philippines.1

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
reversed and the petition herein dismissed, with costs against petitioner, Chua
Beng.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar,and Sanchez, J.J., concur.

^[1]
Within the purview of the Naturalization Law, a ‘credible’ person is, to our
mind, not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime;
who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in
the past; or whose ‘affidavit’ or testimony is not incredible. What must be
‘credible’ is not the declaration made, but the person making it. This
implies that such person must have a good standing in the community;
that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be
trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value,
as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner.  Thus, in Cu vs. Republic, G. R. No.
L-3018 (decided on July 18, 1951), we declared that said affiants ‘are in a way
insurers of the character of the candidate concerned.’ Indeed, by their
affidavits, they do not merely make the statements herein contained. They also
vouch for the applicant, attest to the merits of his petition and sort of underwrite
the same.”

1 Pursuant to Section 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, the applicant for naturalization must, inter alia, “be able to speak and write
English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages.”