IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEON PE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Antique
granting the petition for naturalization filed by Leon Pe. The latter’s
qualifications are not in issue, and the Solicitor General merely contends that
the lower court erred in granting the petition because “only one of the two
character witnesses whose affidavits are attached to his petition testified at
the hearing.”

The petition for naturalization alleged that Delfin Encarnacion and Perpetuo
Lotilla “will appear and testify as my witnesses at the hearing of my herein
petition.” Immediately following said petition are (1) the “affidavit of
witness” Delfin Encarnacion and (2) the “affidavit of witness” Perpetuo Lotilla.
At the hearing, Delfin M. Encarnacion testified for the petitioner, and although
Perpetuo Lotilla was not put on the witness stand, the petitioner presented
Higino Loza as his other witness, and the latter’s affidavit, dated on the same
day as the affidavits of Delfin Encarnacion and Perpetuo Lotilla, appears on
page 31 of the record.

The Solicitor General argues that the testimony of Higino Loza cannot be
substituted for that of Perpetuo Lotilla, inasmuch as to permit such
substitution is tantamount to amending the petition which cannot be allowed,
citing the case of Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines,^[*] G.R. No. L-3018, decided July 18,
1951.

We believe that the law was substantially complied with. Section 7 of the
Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473) provides that “* * * The
petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported
by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are
citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident
of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of
good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their
opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines
and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The
petition shall also set forth the names and post office addresses of such
witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the
case.”

Although the name and post office address of petitioner’s witness Higino Loza
were not set forth in the petition for naturalization, he is a vouching witness
and his affidavit (Exhibit D) is contained in the record. While said affidavit
was not attached immediately after the petition, it recites that it is a part of
the petition.

The decision in Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines is not in point,
since the two vouching witnesses therein were fcund not to be competent, and as
a matter of fact one witness was withdrawn upon objection interposed by the
Government; and no other witnesses were actually presented in support of the
petition.

The decision in Yu Chong Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines,^[**] G.R. No. L-6029, decided April 12, 1954,
also relied upon by the Government, is not applicable, because in said case this
Court found the affidavits attached to the petition for naturalization to be
insufficient and held that the testimony of other witnesses could not be
substituted alter the petitioner had closed his evidence. In the case at bar the
fiscal not only did not object to the presentation of witness Higino Loza but
also cross-examined the latter.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed and it is so ordered without
costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista, Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

---

^[*] 89 Phil., 473

^[**] 94 Phil., 742.