IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. SANTIAGO NG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Marinduque (Civil Case No. 14) admitting
petitioner Santiago Ng to Philippine citizenship.

The trial court found, and the Solicitor General does not dispute,
that petitioner, Chinese, single, was born on May 28, 1927, in Boac,
Marinduque; that he was thirty-two (32) years old at the time of the
hearing of the petition; that he is a resident of Boac, Marinduque, has
resided there since his birth or for more than thirty-years; that he is
a merchant, having a combined bakery-grocery store in Boac, with a
capital of not less than P30,000; that he has paid all his obligations
to the government in the form of licenses and taxes; that he speaks and
writes English and Tagalog; that he has no criminal record and has been
paying his taxes religiously; that he actually participated in the
resistance movement; that he took part in civic activities like Boy
Scouts, Red Cross, and Anti-TB campaigns, and in patriotic celebrations
such as Independence Day, Rizal Day, and National Heroes’ Day; that he
believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that
he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during
the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation
to the constituted government; and that he is not disqualified under
section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

In support of petitioner’s petition and application for
naturalization, his two vouching witnesses, Miguel Manguerra,
provincial governor of Marinduque, and Jose Madrigal, municipal mayor
of Boac, took the stand.

The state appealed the concession of citizenship on the ground that
the testimonies of the two aforesaid vouching witnesses are insuficient
to sustain the averments in their joint affidavit supporting the
petition, it being claimed that they failed to give in their
testimonies the necessary facts to prove that petitioner possesses all
the qualifications and does not possess any of the disqualifications to
become a Filipino citizen.

We have reviewed the testimonies in question and agree with
appellant that they are deficient in necessary, facts to show
petitioner’s non-possession of the disqualifications for Philippine
citizenship.

Apart from stating that they know petitioner intimately, since his
birth with respect to witness Manguerra, and from the time he was five
or six years old with respect to witness Madrigal, these witnesses also
declared:

Witness Miguel Manguerra: that petitioner’s character is
above reproach; that he has mingled with Filipinos and could hardly be
considered a Chinese if one knows him personally; that the witness
recommends petitioner to be a Filipino citizen and believes that he
would be a good citizen; that petitioner is very industrious and
thrifty, traits that Filipinos should emulate; that he is a good
mechanic and would be an asset to our citizenry; that he has personally
observed him to be inclined to the Nationalist Government of China;
that he has a sari-sari store with a capital of about P5,000, and is
also engaged in the copra business with his father; that all his
employees are Filipinos and that he pays them the minimum wage; that he
does not play games of chance, drinks tuba and beer only once
in a while, professes the Catholic religion, does not live with a
common-law wife, is an auto-mechanic by trade, and gives contributions
to civic organizations.

Witness Jose Madrigal: that petitioner’s character is good
and he behaves more like a Filipino than a Chinese; that he has mingled
socially with Filipinos and has no criminal record; that the witness
strongly recommends him to be a Filipino citizen; that he sometimes
goes to the cockpit but does not play mahjong; that he has
seen him drink only one bottle of beer at the times they were together;
that he has a good standing in the community; that the witness does not
believe that petitioner is a Communist Chinese; that he is a
law-abiding citizen, attends only to his business, and does not
hesitate to extend help to anyone in need of it; that he is not living
with any woman; that he owns a bakery business and a truck, and pays
the minimum wage to his employees as well as taxes to the government;
that he often sees him in the Catholic church; and that he went to high
school (though witness is not sure whether he finished it) and also
studied auto mechanics.

It can be seen from the preceding summary of their testimony that
petitioner’s witnesses have at the most established that he has not
been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, and that he has
irreproachable character and mingles socially with Filipinos, but they
have not shown the absence of the other disqualifications specified by
section 4 of the Naturalization Law. No facts are given by the
witnesses from which the Court may infer that applicant Ng is not a
person opposed to organized government nor is he affiliated to a group
of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposed to organized
government; that he does not defend or teach the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of his ideas; that he does not believe in the practice of
polygamy; or that he is not suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious disease.

The absence of such disqualifications is part and parcel of the case
for naturalization, and it is incumbent upon the applicant to prove the
same, in addition to his possession of the positive qualifications
required by the statute. The belief expressed by the witnesses that the
petitioner would make a good citizen, and that they recommend his
admission to Filipino citizenship, is a mere conclusion unsupported by
facts, and, therefore, an opinion entitled to no weight. The rule is
that “the opinion of an intimate acquaintance respecting the mental
sanity of a person, the reason for the opinion being given,
may be received in evidence” (Rule 123, section 20); and in the case of
an expert, the value of his opinion depends upon the facts he can
adduce to support it. “If the basis of his conclusion is not very well
shown, or if shown, the logic of such conclusions is not convincing,
his opinion deserves no weight” (3 Moran, Rules of Court, p. 160; U.S. vs. Kosel, 24 Phil., 594; People vs. Florendo, 68 Phil., 619). This criterion should apply with greater force to opinions of non-expert witnesses.

It is true that the applicant himself has testified to the absence
of disqualifications; but the law itself, by requiring that the
petition for naturalization should be supported by the affidavit of at
least two credible citizens, indicates that the sworn assertions on the
matter by the applicant himself are not sufficient if standing alone.
The rules should apply with greater strictness in the case before us,
because the lack of a declaration of intention, albeit excused in the
present instance by a 30-year residence, has, nevertheless, prevented
as thorough an investigation into petitioner’s qualifications as in
ordinary cases where a declaration of intent has been filed with the
Solicitor General.

Premises considered, we find the evidence on record inadequate to
warrant the admission of applicant Santiago Ng to Filipino citizenship.
The decision appealed from is, therefore, reversed, and the petition
ordered dismissed. Costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.