MAHESH KUMAR, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
BUESER, J.:
Culled from the records[2] are the following pertinent, material antecedent facts :
On 08 August 2008, petitioner-appellee Mahesh Kumar, of legal age and a citizen of Pakistan, filed a Petition for Naturalization before the court a quo. It was alleged that Mahesh Kumar was 37 years old, married and a resident of 6-B Constellation St., Bel Air II, Makati City. He was a permanent resident of the Philippines at the time he filed his petition for naturalization.
Petitioner-appellee was born on 14 May 1971 in Kandht Kot, Pakistan to Pakistani parents. He first arrived in the Philippines on 12 June 1997, on board Malaysian Airlines Flight No. MH372. From the time of his arrival in the Philippines, he first lived in 964-A San Andres St., Malate, Manila from 1997 to 1999. In 1999, he moved to Makati Prime No. 401, 4th Floor, Cluster 4 until 2001. He moved to 7907-D Lawaan St., San Antonio Village, Makati City and stayed there until 2008. In 2008, he transferred to his present residence in 6-B Constellation St., Bel-Air, Jupiter St., Makati City.
He is married to Sangeeta Kumari, likewise a citizen of Pakistan. They were married in Pakistan on 26 November 2009 in accordance with Hindu customs. They have two children; Viney Kumar who was born on 23 December 2001 and Rohit Kumar who was born on 2 March 2005. Both children are enrolled at OB Montessori Center, Inc. at Sta. Ana, Manila.
It was also alleged that petitioner-appellee believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. By this, he understands that the Philippines is a democratic country. He expressed his sincere desire to learn and embrace the custom, culture and traditions of the Philippines. His religion is Hinduism and he does not believe in polygamy. He is not opposed to organized government nor is he affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized government. In case of coup d’etat undertaken by the military, he will not support them because he believes that Philippines is a democratic country. He does not defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of men’s ideas. He believes that men and women should be co-equal in all aspects.
Petitioner-appellee knows how to read and write in English and Filipino/Tagalog. He has not filed any petition for citizenship before any court, tribunal or agency. Petitioner-appellee believes that he can be an asset to the Philippine government because he is involved on the agricultural business and that they are planning to have more agricultural reforms which are beneficial to the country.
Petitioner-appellee has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and likewise, there is no derogatory file on record against him. He serves as a director of the Rotary Club of Pasay Silangan and actively participates in charity works through the Philippine Indian Seva Foundation, Inc.
Furthermore, he works as the Managing Director of MVR Import/Export Internationals, Inc. and has been paying his taxes religiously to the government.
Prior to the filing of the Petition, petitioner-appellee filed an Affidavit of Declaration of Intention to Become Filipino Citizen with the Office of the Solicitor General.
Finding the petition sufficient in form, the court a quo ordered the publication and posting of the petition and the general notice of hearing. In addition, the hearing was set on 2 June 2009.
On 2 June 2009, only the counsel of petitioner-appellee was present. No representative of the Office of the Solicitor General, the Makati City Prosecution Office, the Philippine National Police and the Office of the Executive Judge of Metropolitan Trial Court were present. However, the petitioner-appellee submitted and proceeded with the marking of documentary evidence which supported his petition.
The court a quo acquired jurisdiction over the petition and directed the petitioner-appellee to present his evidence on 20 August 2009. The whole world except the government was considered in general default.
On 20 August 2009, due to lack of material time and by agreement of the parties, the initial presentation of petitioner-appellee’s evidence was reset to 07, 08, 09 and 22 October 2009. Thereafter, on 7 October 2009, by motion of the Assistant City Prosecutor, and considering the absence of a representative from the Office of the Solicitor General, the initial presentation of evidence was cancelled and reset to 4 and 5 November 2009.
On further motion by the petitioner-appellee, the initial presentation of evidence was cancelled in order to allow the Office of the Solicitor General time to file its entry of appearance or to deputize the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office in their behalf.
Thereafter, the petitioner-appellee took the witness stand and presented as his witnesses Mary Grace Mendoza and Ferdinand Leonen. Mary Grace Mendoza testified that she has known petitioner-appellant for 10 years since he was one of her clients in connection with his import/export business. On the other hand, Ferdinand Leonen testified that he met petitioner-appellant in 1997 or 1998 because the latter supplied him with fruits from Pakistan.
On 31 August 2012, the trial court rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court believes and so holds that petitioner MAHESH KUMAR has complied with all the requirements to become a Philippine citizen. He has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under Sections 2 and 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as Amended by Commonwealth Act No. 535.
Upon the expiration of the two-year period provided for by Section 1, Republic Act No. 530, the said petitioner shall be allowed to become a naturalized citizen of the Philippines, after submission of satisfactory proof that he has complied with the other requirements of the aforementioned law.
Thereafter, the Order of this Court granting citizenship to the petitioner shall be registered and the oath provided by existing laws shall be taken by the petitioner-applicant. Thereupon, the petitioner will be entitled to the privileges of a citizen of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The Republic, through the Solicitor General opposed the grant of Philippine citizenship on the sole ground:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT PETITIONER’S CHARACTER WITNESSES ARE COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.
We find the appeal meritorious.
The Solicitor General claims that petitioner-appellee failed to prove that he possesses all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 or the Revised Naturalization Law, viz:
Section 2. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years;
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education1 of the Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.
More particularly, the Solicitor General questions the grant of Filipino citizenship to petitioner-appellee since he and his witnesses failed to prove his good moral character as required by the Revised Naturalization Law.
It is well settled that naturalization is granted only to those worthy of this privilege. It is not vested indiscriminately but only to those who possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications imposed by law. “Naturalization proceedings are impressed with the highest public interest, involving as it does an inquiry as to when an alien should be allowed to enjoy the coveted boon of Filipino citizenship. It is for this reason that the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the law[4]”
Good moral character, among others, is a requirement for the grant of naturalization. It is incumbent upon the petitioner-appellee to present witnesses competent to vouch for his good moral character. In addition, these witnesses, themselves, must possess good moral character as well[5]. The burden rests upon the petitioner-appellee to prove not only his good moral character but also that of his witnesses who must be credible persons[6].
In So vs. Republic[7], it was held:
In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons. Within the purview of the naturalization law, a “credible person” is 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 applicant’s worthiness.
Here, nothing in the records would show that petitioner-appellee’s witnesses were established as credible persons within the purview of the Revised Naturalization Law. While We are not casting doubt as to the character of these witnesses, We are merely pointing out that the petitioner-appellee failed to establish their credibility and good moral character.
Aside from the credibility and good moral character of his witnesses, the petitioner-appellee failed to prove that his witnesses are competent enough to vouch for his good moral character. They did not testify on “specific facts and events justifying the inference that applicant – as personally known to them – possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law for purposes of naturalization[8]”.
Witness Mary Grace Mendoza mentioned that she meets petitioner-appellee when there are birthdays, Christmas or during hang-outs. She likewise mentioned that petitioner-appellee is “mabait and soft-spoken”. However, these are not sufficient to prove petitioner-appellee’s good moral character for the purposes of naturalization.
On the other hand, witness Ferdinand Leonen testified that he has known the petitioner-appellee since 1997 or 1998. The latter supplied him fruits from Pakistan. In the same manner, Leonen testimony lacked specific instances, events or acts of petitioner-appellee which would show his fitness to be a naturalized Filipino citizen.
Here, it was merely shown that the witnesses were persons who conducted business with the petitioner-appellee. Nothing in their testimony would confirm that they knew petitioner-appellee well enough to vouch for his good moral character. Nor did they cite specific instances or acts from which We can deduce that Mahesh Kumar is qualified to be a Filipino citizen.
In fine, We find that petitioner-appellee failed to show full compliance with the requirements of the Revised Naturalization Law. Hence, We are reversing the decision of the court a quo granting the petition for naturalization. “Admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that should not be conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with the law[9]”.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 139 of Makati City dated 31 August 2012 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for naturalization docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-99 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
De Guia-Salvador (Chairman) and Garcia, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 17-30
[2] Rollo, pp. 1-89
[3] Rollo, p. 30.
[4] Republic vs. Hong, GR. No, 168877, March 24, 2006 citing Sy vs. Republic 154 Phil. 673, 678 (1974
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Gr. No. 170603, June 29, 2007 citing Republic vs. Hong, GR. No, 168877, March 24, 2006, Ong vs. Republic 103 Phil 964
[8] Republic vs. Hong, GR. No, 168877, March 24, 2006 citing Tse Viw v. Republic, 124 Phil. 1311, 1313 (1966).
[9] Republic vs. Hong, GR. No, 168877, March 24, 2006