Co vs. Republic

A naturalization petitioner who proves all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Revised Naturalization Law is eligible for admission, and a denial cannot rest on the trial court’s unsupported policy pronouncements or speculation about the character witnesses.

Benito Co, a Chinese citizen residing in the Philippines, sought admission as a Filipino citizen under the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 473. The Republic of the Philippines appeared as oppositor-appellee in the naturalization proceedings. The law requires an applicant to establish the prescribed qualifications and none of the disqualifications, with character witnesses attesting to his good repute and moral irreproachability.

On August 23, 1955, Benito Co filed his application for naturalization as a Filipino citizen, accompanied by the joint affidavit of Augusta N. Aguilar, Dominador Cruz, and Dionisio F. Coronel as sponsors and character witnesses, which affidavit (Exh. A) was made an integral part of the petition. The notice of hearing was published in the Voz de Manila, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila (Exh. BB), and in the Official Gazette (Exh. CC), pursuant to law. After due publication, the case was called for hearing; Benito Co and his sponsors Augusto N. Aguilar and Dionisio Coronel appeared and testified in support of the petition, and the petitioner presented the exhibits marked in the record.

The petition alleged, and the trial judge said the evidence showed, that Benito Co was born in Amoy, China, in December 1915; that he arrived in the Philippines aboard the SS Ang King in 1926; that he had since resided continuously in the Philippines and in the City of Manila for at least one year immediately before filing; that he was married to Rosario Tan (Exh. C) and had four children, Betty Co, Juanito Co, Rosa Co, and Ropindo (Rufino) Co (Exhs. H, H-1, I-1, I-2, J-1, J-2, K-1, and K-2); that he was then a building contractor with an average annual income of P3,000.00; that he had been paying taxes (Exhs. B, B-1, and B-2); that he could read, speak, and write English and Tagalog; and that he had registered as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration (Exhs. E and E-1), together with his wife and children (Exhs. F, F-1, G, I, J, and K), under Republic Act No. 562.

Benito Co declared that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire residence in the Philippines in relation with the duly constituted authorities and the community; that he had mingled socially with Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their customs, traditions, and ideals; that he was not opposed to organized government nor affiliated with any association or group upholding doctrines opposing all organized governments; that he was not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of men’s ideas; that he was not a polygamist nor a believer in polygamy; that he had never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; that he was not suffering from any incurable disease; that the nation of which he was a citizen or subject was not at war with the Philippines; and that it was his intention in good faith to become a Filipino citizen and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, particularly China, of which he was then a citizen or subject. In support of the petition, Augusta N. Aguilar and Dionisio Coronel testified that they knew the petitioner personally and that, to their personal knowledge, he was a person of good repute and morally irreproachable; they further declared that he had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a citizen under Commonwealth Act No. 473 and that, in their opinion, he would be an asset to the community rather than a liability.

Although the Government was represented at the hearing by the Solicitor General’s Office, it presented no evidence and interposed no written or verbal opposition before, during, or after the hearing. The trial court nevertheless denied the petition. It found the testimony of the two character witnesses vacillating, incomplete, and unsatisfactory, based on mere conjectures without sufficient grounds for their opinions; it said their knowledge of the petitioner was casual and insufficient for a just evaluation of his character and real intention, and that most of their statements were hearsay because based on what the petitioner told them. The trial court also invoked what it described as a nationwide movement or hysteria among foreigners to become Filipino citizens, stressed that Philippine citizenship is a sacred heritage that cannot be acquired by mere recital of legal provisions or insincere protestations, and warned that naturalization should be strictly interpreted to prevent selfish motives from acquiring privileges belonging to the Filipino people.

• Character Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the testimony of the two character witnesses was vacillating, incomplete, and based on mere conjectures without sufficient grounds, because their testimony and Exhibit A showed personal knowledge and established the requirements of Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
• Naturalization Policy: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in denying admission as a citizen by adopting a different policy not contemplated by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the uncontradicted evidence was more than sufficient to establish that he had all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Act No. 473, as amended, and that he should be declared eligible for admission as a citizen of the Philippines.

• Character Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in finding the testimony of the two character witnesses vacillating, incomplete, and based on mere conjectures without sufficient grounds.
• Naturalization Policy: Whether the trial court erred in denying admission by adopting a policy not contemplated by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the uncontradicted evidence established that petitioner had all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Act No. 473, as amended, and was eligible for admission as a citizen.

• Character Witnesses: Yes. The trial court erred; the record showed the witnesses had personal knowledge of petitioner and his family since 1941, and their testimony and Exhibit A established the Section 7 requirements rather than hearsay or conjecture.
• Naturalization Policy: Yes. The trial court erred in denying the petition on policy grounds not contemplated by Commonwealth Act No. 473; its patriotic pronouncements had no support in the record.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The uncontradicted evidence established that petitioner had all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Act, making him eligible for admission.

• Character Witnesses: The SC reviewed the transcript and found no support for the trial judge’s characterization of the two sponsoring witnesses. Aguilar and Coronel were architects who personally knew Benito Co for the period required by law; their statements in Exhibit A and their testimony identified his name, the names of his four children, his place of residence, and other details of his life, including his association with them in business and social affairs, covering the whole span of time required by law. Because this information came from actual contact with petitioner and his family since 1941, the SC held it could not be labeled hearsay, vacillating, incomplete, or unsatisfactory. The trial court’s contrary finding was therefore unsupported by the record.
• Naturalization Policy: The trial court denied the petition partly on general policy grounds: the alleged nationwide demand or hysteria among foreigners to become Filipino citizens, the sacredness of Philippine citizenship, the need for strict interpretation, and the fear that naturalization would be sought for selfish economic advantage. The SC held that these outbursts had no support in the record. It noted that petitioner’s working knowledge of English and Tagalog was tested rigorously and that he passed; his examination on Philippine history, political laws, and the Constitution was also successful; and the trial judge himself admitted that under ordinary circumstances and ordinary rules of evidence the proof on record might be considered sufficient. A denial of naturalization could not rest on the trial judge’s policy sentiments rather than on evidence and the law.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The record showed that Benito Co was born in Amoy, China, in December 1915; arrived in the Philippines in 1926; resided continuously in the country and in Manila for at least one year before filing; was married to Rosario Tan with four children; worked as a building contractor earning an average annual income of P3,000.00; paid taxes; could read, speak, and write English and Tagalog; and registered as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration under Republic Act No. 562 together with his wife and children. He declared his belief in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, proper and irreproachable conduct, social mingling with Filipinos, and absence of the disqualifications; his two witnesses testified to his good repute and moral irreproachability and that he had all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under Commonwealth Act No. 473. The Government presented no evidence and no opposition. The SC held that the possible expectation of benefits from naturalization did not disqualify him, since the same could be said of all aliens who apply and are granted citizenship, and that the record established his eligibility for admission as a citizen of the Philippines under Sections 2 and 4.

• Naturalization requires proof of qualifications and no disqualifications — Under the Revised Naturalization Law, an applicant must establish all qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4; the SC applied this by holding Benito Co eligible because the evidence showed he met these requirements and the Government offered no contrary evidence.
• Denial must rest on record evidence, not unsupported policy sentiments — A naturalization court cannot deny a petition based on general patriotic pronouncements or speculation about motives when those are unsupported by the record; the SC reversed because the trial judge’s policy outbursts had no support in the evidence.
• Character witnesses must speak from personal knowledge — Testimony of character witnesses is not hearsay or insufficient merely because it covers personal details learned through long acquaintance; the SC found the witnesses’ knowledge based on actual contact with petitioner and his family since 1941 and sufficient under Section 7.
• Expectation of benefits does not by itself disqualify — An applicant’s hope of deriving benefits from citizenship does not alone defeat naturalization; the SC noted that the same could be said of all aliens who apply and are granted citizenship, and it did not negate the petitioner’s proven eligibility.

• "It may be true that the petitioner, aside from his sincere desire to become a Filipino citizen could have been moved by the expectation of benefits that he might derive from his naturalization as a Filipino citizen; but the same thing can be said of all the aliens who have applied and been granted Filipino citizenship." — The SC rejects the idea that an applicant’s expectation of benefits is by itself a ground for denial.
• "We find that in so far as petitioner and appellant is concerned, the outbursts of His Honor has no support in the record." — The SC dismisses the trial court’s policy pronouncements as unsupported by the evidence.
• "We are of the opinion, and thus hold, that petitioner and appellant Benito Co has proved to be eligible for admission as a citizen of the Philippines, for he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed for that grant by the Revised Naturalization Law." — The SC states its ultimate holding on petitioner’s eligibility.

• Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Act) — Sets the qualifications for naturalization; the SC held petitioner established all of them.
• Section 4, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Lists the disqualifications; the SC held petitioner had none.
• Section 7, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Governs character witnesses; the SC found the testimony of Aguilar and Coronel satisfied it because they had personal knowledge of petitioner.
• Republic Act No. 562 — Alien registration law; petitioner’s registration with the Bureau of Immigration together with his wife and children under this law was part of the evidence considered.