Robert Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines

A naturalization petition cannot be granted unless it is supported by at least two credible witnesses who are Philippine citizens and who personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the statutory period; an incompetent or unqualified vouching witness renders the application void. A declaration of Philippine citizenship cannot rest on uncertain testimony that the applicant's parents were unmarried, since the strong presumption of legitimacy must be overcome by competent evidence.

Robert Cu and the Republic of the Philippines were the opposing parties in a naturalization proceeding governed by the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 473. That law requires a petition for citizenship to be supported by the affidavits of at least two credible persons who are Philippine citizens and who personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period required by the Act—five years for petitioners born in the Philippines and ten years in other cases. The proceeding also implicated Article IX, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Philippine Constitution, which concerns the election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Robert Cu filed a petition for naturalization setting forth the facts required and appropriate for that purpose. At the hearing, however, he said that he was a citizen of the Philippines. The Court of First Instance of Rizal based its pronouncement that he was a Philippine citizen solely on his testimony.

Cu testified that he was born in Angat, Bulacan, in 1913; that he considered himself a subject of the Philippines; and that when he was about five months old his mother, a Filipina, died. His father then brought him to China right after that. At the age of five, they left China, and he was given to the care of Doña Margarita Emanahas (Mangahas). When asked why he petitioned to be admitted as a citizen, he explained that he considered himself a Filipino citizen because his mother was Filipina and he was born in the Philippines, and that his only fault was failing to file his application to elect Philippine citizenship; he was now asking the court to make a judgment on that.

The Government attorney moved to strike Cu's answer that he was a Filipino citizen as a mere conclusion of the witness, and the testimony was ordered stricken out. Cu further testified that, as far as he knew, his mother and father were not legally married, and that he had never seen his father after returning to the Philippines when he was five years old. The Court found these statements made plain that Cu was at best uncertain whether his parents were unmarried and were utterly inadequate to support a declaration of Philippine citizenship.

The two witnesses who made affidavits and gave evidence in support of the application were not qualified. Dr. Jose Ku Yeg Keng admitted that his father was a Chinese national and his mother a Filipina; when asked whether he had actually elected Philippine citizenship or filed any citizenship application by election in writing, he answered that he had not, in the sense that he did not have any proceedings in it. He also said that he was a member of the reserve force of the Philippine Army, an ROTC trainee, trained in the Philippine Army, and called during the war; that he had voted in one of the post-liberation elections; and that he was a government employee, a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines, and a resident physician of the Philippine General Hospital. These circumstances alone did not make him a citizen of the country or eligible as a vouching witness. Dr. Pastor Gomez testified that he had known Cu since liberation, about August 1945. After that answer, counsel for the Government objected to further testimony; the objection was sustained, and Dr. Gomez was withdrawn.

No other witnesses were introduced in support of the petition.

• Citizenship by Birth: Petitioner claimed that he was a Filipino citizen because his mother was a Filipina and he was born in the Philippines, specifically in Angat, Bulacan, in 1913.
• Failure to Elect: Petitioner admitted that he failed to file an application to elect Philippine citizenship, but asked the court to make a judgment on his claim of Philippine citizenship.

• Conclusion of Witness: Respondent protested that petitioner's answer that he was a Filipino citizen was a mere conclusion of the witness, and the testimony was ordered stricken out.
• Witness Qualification: Respondent objected to Dr. Pastor Gomez testifying further; the objection was sustained and Dr. Gomez was withdrawn.

• Presumption of Legitimacy: Whether the applicant's uncertain testimony that his parents were not legally married sufficed to overcome the strong legal presumption that he was born in wedlock.
• Citizenship by Birth or Election: Whether, if born in wedlock, Robert Cu was a Chinese citizen who failed to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority.
• Qualified Vouching Witnesses: Whether the naturalization petition could be granted despite the lack of at least two qualified citizen witnesses under Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.

• Presumption of Legitimacy: No. The strong legal presumption that the applicant was born in wedlock cannot be destroyed by evidence so slim and shaky as his uncertain statement that his parents were not legally married.
• Citizenship by Birth or Election: No. If his parents were legally married, he was born a Chinese citizen and remained such unless he elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority under Article IX, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Philippine Constitution, which he admitted he did not do.
• Qualified Vouching Witnesses: No. Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 requires at least two credible witnesses who are Philippine citizens and personally know the petitioner to be a resident for the statutory period; the witnesses presented were not qualified, rendering the petition void and not grantable.

• Presumption of Legitimacy: The lower court's declaration was based solely on Cu's testimony. He said his mother was Filipina and he was born in Angat, Bulacan, in 1913, but he also said that, as far as he knew, his parents were not legally married. That statement showed uncertainty and was inadequate to support a declaration of Philippine citizenship. The strong legal presumption that he was born in wedlock—that his parents were lawful husband and wife—cannot be destroyed by evidence so slim and shaky. The declaration of citizenship was therefore reversed.
• Citizenship by Birth or Election: Because the presumption of legitimacy stood, Cu was born a Chinese citizen and continued to be so unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship under Article IX, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Philippine Constitution. He confessed that he did not file an application to elect Philippine citizenship. His claim of Philippine citizenship by right of birth or selection therefore failed.
• Qualified Vouching Witnesses: Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 473, requires the petition to be signed by the applicant and supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons who are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period required by the Act—five years for petitioners born in the Philippines under Section 3 and ten years in other cases under Section 2, paragraph 2. Dr. Jose Ku Yeg Keng admitted his father was Chinese and his mother Filipina, and that he had not elected Philippine citizenship; his military, voting, and government employment did not make him a Philippine citizen or an eligible vouching witness. Dr. Pastor Gomez had known Cu only since liberation, about August 1945, and was withdrawn after the Government's objection was sustained. No other witnesses were introduced. The Court adopted the reasoning of United States vs. Martorana and In re Kornstain that a petition not verified by at least two citizen witnesses is void, that an incompetent witness renders an application void, and that a competent witness cannot be substituted for an incompetent one. The dismissal of the naturalization petition was therefore affirmed, without prejudice to a new application.

• Naturalization — Qualified Vouching Witnesses — Under Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473), a petition for citizenship must be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons who are Philippine citizens and who personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period required by the Act. The witnesses must be citizens and must have known the petitioner for the statutory residence period—five years for petitioners born in the Philippines and ten years in other cases. An incompetent or unqualified witness renders the application void; a competent witness cannot be substituted for an incompetent one. In this case, neither Dr. Jose Ku Yeg Keng nor Dr. Pastor Gomez satisfied these requirements, so the petition could not be granted.
• Presumption of Legitimacy — A strong legal presumption exists that a person was born in wedlock, meaning the parents were lawful husband and wife. This presumption cannot be destroyed by evidence that is slim and shaky. The Court applied it to Robert Cu's uncertain testimony that his parents were not legally married, holding that the testimony was inadequate to support a declaration of Philippine citizenship.
• Election of Philippine Citizenship — Under Article IX, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Philippine Constitution, a person who is born a Chinese citizen because his parents were legally married must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority to become a Philippine citizen. Robert Cu admitted he did not file such an election, so he remained a Chinese citizen and could not be declared a Philippine citizen by right of birth or selection.
• Adoption of Foreign Statutory Construction — A statute adopted from another state or country is presumed to have been adopted with the construction placed upon it by the courts of that state or country before its adoption. Such construction is regarded as of great weight, or at least persuasive, and will generally be followed if reasonable, in harmony with justice and public policy, and with other laws of the adopting jurisdiction. The Court adopted the United States courts' construction of naturalization witness requirements as sound and reasonable.

• "The strong legal presumption that the applicant was born in wedlock — that his parent were lawful husband and wife — cannot be destroyed by evidence so slim and shaky." — States the presumption of legitimacy that defeated Cu's claim of Philippine citizenship by birth.
• "If the applicant's parents were legally married, which is to be presumed, then he was born a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship (Art IX, sec. 1, par. 4, Philippine Constitution), which he confessedly did not do." — Explains why Cu's failure to elect Philippine citizenship precluded a declaration that he was a Philippine citizen.
• "According to this provision, the witnesses must be 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," which in cases of petitioners born in the Philippines is five years (Sec. 3) and in other cases ten years (Sec. 2, par. 2)." — Construes Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 and the residence period the vouching witnesses must know.
• "A witness who is incompetent renders an application void." — States the consequence of an unqualified vouching witness in naturalization proceedings, a rule the Court adopted from United States jurisprudence.

• United States vs. Martorana, 171 Fed. Rep. 397 — The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that under the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, a petition not verified by at least two citizen witnesses is not merely voidable but void, and cannot be amended. The Court found the reasoning sound and adopted it.
• In re Kornstain, 268 Fed. Rep. 182 — The court held that an incompetent witness renders a naturalization application void and that a competent witness cannot be substituted for an incompetent one. The Court adopted this reasoning.
• United States vs. Gulliksen, 244 Fed. 727 — Cited in In re Kornstain for the rule that a competent witness cannot be substituted for an incompetent one. The Court included it in its adopted reasoning.

• Article IX, Section 1, Paragraph 4, Philippine Constitution — Provides for election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Applied to hold that if Cu was born in wedlock to a Chinese father, he remained a Chinese citizen because he did not elect Philippine citizenship.
• Section 7, Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473) — Requires the petition for citizenship to be signed by the applicant and supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons who are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period required by the Act; also requires names and post office addresses of witnesses. Applied to hold that the petition could not be granted because the supporting witnesses were not qualified.
• Section 3, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Sets the residence requirement for petitioners born in the Philippines at five years. Applied to the witness requirement because the vouching witnesses must know the petitioner to be a resident for that period.
• Section 2, Paragraph 2, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Sets the residence requirement in other cases at ten years. Applied to the witness requirement for petitioners not born in the Philippines.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.