TE TAY SENG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal from a decree entered on 14 July 1959 by the Court of First
Instance of Manila granting the petition filed by Te Tay Seng to become
a Filipino citizen by naturalization (case No. 37295).

On 25 August 1958 Te Tay Seng filed a sworn petition stating what
section 7 of Commonwealth. Act No. 473 requires to be pleaded. By order
of the court, the notice setting the petition for hearing on 5 May 1959
at 8:30 o’clock in the morning was published in the Official Gazette
for three consecutive issues on 29 September, 6 and 13 October 1958
(Exhibit B) and in the Daily Mirror once a week for three consecutive
weeks on 1, 8 and 15 September 1958 (Exhibits C and C-l). On 20 April
1959 the applicant prayed that the testimony of Francisco R. Lopez, one
of the character witnesses, be taken and heard on 28 April 1959 at 8:30
o’clock a.m. instead of 5 May 1959, the date set for the hearing of the
petition, because three days thereafter, or on 26 April, he (the
witness) would go abroad on a business trip for about four months. On
23 April, the date when the testimony was to be taken, the Government
objected to the taking and,hearing of the testimony, contending that
prior to 5 May 1959, the date set for the hearing of the petition as
published in the Official Gazette, the court had not yet acquired
jurisdiction to hear the case even as regards the examination of only
one character witness. At first, the court denied the taking of said
testimony but, later on, allowed it on motion for reconsideration by
the applicant. After trial, on 14 July 1959 the court entered the
decree referred to at the beginning of this opinion.

The Government has appealed.

The appellant predicates its appeal on the ground that (1) the trial
court was without jurisdiction to take the testimony of one of the
character witnesses before the date of hearing published in the
Official Gazette and newspaper; (2) the character witnesses presented
by the appellee are not credible persons within the meaning.of the
Revised Naturalization Law, as amended; and (3) it had not been proved
that the appellee is morally irreproachable.

Section ,1 of Republic Act No. 530 in part provides that-

* * * no petition for Philippine citizenship shall
be heard by the cottrts until after six months from the publication of
the application requested Iby law * * * (Italics supplied)

Section 10, Commonwealth Act No. 473, in part provides that—

No petition shall be heard within the thirty days preceding any election. * * *

In the case at bar, as from 13 October 1958, the last publication of
the notice of hearing, to 23 April 1959, the date when the testimony of
the character witness Francisco R. Lopez was taken or heard, the six
months already had passed, and as it does not appear that an election
was to be held within 30 days from 23 April 1959, the testimony of the
character witness Francisco R. Lopez taken or heard on 23 April 1959
does not come under the prohibition above quoted.

On 23 April 1959 Francisco R. Lopez testified that he first came to
know Te Tay Seng in the later part of 1947 and since then had freguent
contacts with him, because as a businessman he used to go to the
National Development Company to purchase textiles and lie (the witness)
was the officer-in-charge thereof; that Te’Tay Seng continuously had
resided in the Philippines and associated with the Filipinos, speaks
and writes English and Taga-log, has embraced the Filipino customs,
believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution,
likes the democratic wafir of life, is a Christian belonging to the
Anglo-Christian Church on Soler, Manila, and as Te Tay Seng had not
been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude he (the witness)
recommends applicant’s admission, as a citizen; that he (the witness)
is a natural-born Filipino; and that he ratines all the contents of the
joint affidavit (Exhibit A) executed on 11 August 1958 by him and his
co-witness Sofio Zarsadias and attached to,the petition for
naturalization. The witness was not cross-examined. .

On 9 June 1959 Sofio Zarsadias testified that he had known Te Tay
Seng since 1948; that the latter had been mingling and associating with
Filipinos, has means of livelihood, writes and speaks English and
Tagalog, knows the principles which underlie the Philippine
Constitut’on and for that reason he (the witness) believes that Te Tay
Seng has the qualifications and .none of the’ disqualifications to
become a Filipino citizen by naturalization. He identified his
signature in the joint affidavit (Exhibit A) and ratified its contents.
On cross examination, he declared that since 1948 he had been residing
in 1332 Gelinios street, Manila, came to know Te Tay Seng for the first
time in 1948, and before that year had only heard of his name but had
no personal contact with him.

The two character witnesses failed to show and prove that they are
credible persons as contemplated by law. In the case of Ong t>s.
Kepublic of the Philippines, 55 Off. Gaz. 3290, this Court describes a
credible person as follows:

* * * 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 nut a fiolioz
character and has no police record who has not perjured in the last; 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 commauity;
that he is known to be hmwst and upright; that lie 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. * * *
(Italic supplied)

The decree appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization denied, with costs against the appellee.

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