IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PHILIPPINES CITIZENSHIP. NABIH AWAD, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal, taken by petitioner Nabih. Awad, from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Davao, denying his application for naturalization as
citizen of the Philippines, upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to
establish his ability to read and write a principal local dialect.

In this connection, petitioner testified that he was born in Lebanon, in
1924; that he came to the Philippines in 1936; that, since then, he had resided
continuously in the Philippines, having returned to Lebanon only once in 1948;
that he studied up to the first year high school; that he knows how to read and
write English; that he understood the contents of his petition, which is in
Spanish; and that, he can speak the Visayan and the Tagalog dialects. Although
there is no direct evidence that he can write either dialect, his ability to do
so is conceded by the Solicitor General, for, having reached first year high
school, he is literate and, as such, may be deemed capable of writing the
dialects he speaks, namely, the Visayan and the Tagalog, which are phonetic.
(Lao Chin Kieng vs. Republic of the Philippines,^[*] 40 Off. Gaz., 2654, 2656.)

This notwithstanding, we are of the opinion that petitioner’s application for
naturalization has been properly dismissed. Pursuant to section 7 of the Revised
Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473), an applicant for naturalization
must attach’ to his petition the affidavits 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” This period is ten (10) years (Section 2, Commonwealth Act No,
473), except when petitioner falls within certain specified classes— namely,
“having been born in the Philippines”; or “being married to a Filipino woman”;
or “having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or
recognized private school * * * for * * * not less than two years”; or “having
honorably held office under the government of the Philippines or of its local
subdivisions”; or “having established a new industry or introduced a new
invention in the Philippines” (Sec. 2)—to neither of which classes petitioner
herein belongs. In other words, for the validity of petitioner’s
application (See Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines, L-3018, decided on
July 18, 1951) it is essential that the same be supported by the affidavits of
two citizens of the Philippines who knew Mm to be a resident thereof for at
least ten (10) years.

In the case at bar, petitioner’s application was accompanied by the
affidavits of Jesus V. Oceña and Gregorio P. Manongdo. The latter did not take
the witness stand, whereas the former testified that he came to know petitioner
in 1947, or only five (5) years prior to the filing of petitioner’s application
on December 4, 1952. It is obvious, therefore, that the same is fatally
defective and must necessarily be dismissed.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
petitioner herein. So ordered.

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

Judgment affirmed.

---

^[*] 91 Phil., 510.