So vs. Republic

Republic Act No. 9139 applies exclusively to administrative naturalization and does not amend, repeal, or supplement the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by Commonwealth Act No. 473 for judicial naturalization; an applicant who elects judicial naturalization must comply strictly with the requirements of C.A. No. 473, including the credibility and good moral character of character witnesses, who must testify on specific facts and events demonstrating the applicant's qualifications.

Petitioner Edison So is a Chinese citizen born on February 17, 1982 in Manila, where he has resided since birth. He sought Philippine citizenship through judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, the Revised Naturalization Law. At the time he filed his petition on February 28, 2002, Republic Act No. 9139, the Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000, had already taken effect on August 8, 2001, providing an alternative, administrative mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship available to native-born aliens with relaxed qualifications, including a lower age requirement of eighteen years. Petitioner nonetheless chose the judicial route, filing his petition with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Petitioner Edison So, a Chinese citizen, was born on February 17, 1982 in Manila and has lived at No. 528 Lavezares Street, Binondo, Manila since birth. On February 28, 2002, he filed a Petition for Naturalization before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, docketed as Naturalization Case No. 02-102984, under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. He alleged that he was single, able to speak and write English, Chinese, and Tagalog, and derived an average annual income of around ₱100,000.00 with free board and lodging as an employee. He claimed exemption from filing a Declaration of Intention under Section 6 of C.A. No. 473 because he was born in the Philippines and studied in a school recognized by the Government. He asserted that he possessed all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, and that it was his good-faith intention to become a Filipino citizen and renounce all allegiance to China.

The RTC set the petition for hearing on December 12 and 17, 2002, and ordered publication of the petition and its annexes once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in Manila, as well as posting of notices in public and conspicuous places in the Manila City Hall. Petitioner caused publication in the Official Gazette on May 20 and 27, 2002, and in Today newspaper on May 25 and June 1, 2002. No one opposed the petition.

At the hearing, petitioner presented two character witnesses. Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr., legal consultant and adviser of the So family's business, testified that he came to know petitioner in 1991 through professional visits to the family and attendance at social functions. He described petitioner as obedient, hardworking, and of good moral character, and stated that petitioner's family observed Christmas, New Year, and fiestas. Mark Salcedo, petitioner's classmate at the University of Santo Tomas where they both studied Pharmacy, testified that he had known petitioner for about ten years, saw him twice a week, and considered him intelligent and of good moral character. Petitioner also testified and offered documentary evidence including his Certificate of Live Birth, Alien Certificate of Registration, Immigrant Certificate of Residence, school records, employment certification, income tax returns, bank certification, clearances, and medical certificates.

The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003, finding that the witnesses had known petitioner for the period required by law and had affirmed his qualifications and absence of disqualifications. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the character witnesses were not qualified because they did not know petitioner well enough and merely gave general statements without specific details, and that the witnesses did not reside in the same place as petitioner. The Republic also argued that petitioner himself failed to prove his qualifications because he merely answered "yes" or "no" to his counsel's questions.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision on August 4, 2005, dismissing the petition without prejudice. The appellate court found that the witnesses merely "parroted" the provisions of the Naturalization Act without explaining their applicability to petitioner's case, and that petitioner was only twenty years, nine months, and twenty-five days old on the date of the first hearing, December 12, 2002, falling short of the twenty-one-year age requirement under Section 2 of C.A. No. 473. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 24, 2005, prompting the present petition.

• Applicability of R.A. No. 9139: Petitioner argued that the requirements for naturalization under C.A. No. 473 had been relaxed after the Philippines entered into diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and were further relaxed when R.A. No. 9139 was signed into law, such that the qualifications under R.A. No. 9139 should govern his judicial naturalization petition.
• Compliance with Publication Requirements: Petitioner pointed out that the petition and all its annexes were published in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation, and that notices were sent to the NBI, DOJ, DFA, and OSG, none of which came forward to oppose the petition before the lower court.
• Satisfaction of Qualifications: Petitioner insisted that he possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen, as clearly established by his witnesses, and that he graduated cum laude from UST with a degree in Pharmacy and was then a second-year medical student.

• R.A. No. 9139 Inapplicable to Judicial Naturalization: Respondent countered that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to administrative naturalization filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization and does not apply to judicial naturalization before the courts.
• Right to Appeal Despite Non-Opposition: Respondent averred that its failure to oppose the petition before the court a quo does not preclude it from appealing the RTC decision to the CA, and that it is even authorized to question an already final decision by filing a petition for cancellation of citizenship.
• Incompetent Character Witnesses: Respondent reiterated that petitioner's character witnesses were not qualified to prove his qualifications, as they did not know him well enough and merely made general statements without specific details about his character and moral conduct, and did not reside in the same place as petitioner.

• Applicability of R.A. No. 9139: Whether Republic Act No. 9139, which lowered the age qualification to eighteen years, applies to petitions for naturalization by judicial act under Commonwealth Act No. 473.
• Credibility of Character Witnesses: Whether the character witnesses presented by petitioner are "credible" within the meaning of Commonwealth Act No. 473 and established jurisprudence.
• Government's Right to Appeal: Whether the Republic is precluded from appealing the RTC decision because it did not oppose the petition before the lower court.

• Applicability of R.A. No. 9139: No. R.A. No. 9139 applies exclusively to administrative naturalization before the Special Committee on Naturalization and does not amend, repeal, or supplement the qualifications and disqualifications under C.A. No. 473, which governs judicial naturalization.
• Credibility of Character Witnesses: No. The witnesses failed to testify on specific facts and events demonstrating petitioner's qualifications and their own credibility, merely parroting the legal provisions without elaboration.
• Government's Right to Appeal: No, the Republic is not precluded. A naturalization proceeding is not an adversary proceeding, and the decision does not constitute res judicata; the government may appeal within the reglementary period despite its failure to oppose below.

• Applicability of R.A. No. 9139: C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws. The former covers all aliens regardless of class, while the latter covers only native-born aliens who have resided in the Philippines since birth. The legislature's intention in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to provide another, administrative mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship for native-born aliens, not to amend or repeal C.A. No. 473. A native-born alien has the choice to apply for either judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the respective qualifications and disqualifications under each law. Applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to judicial naturalization would broaden its coverage to aliens who are not native born, contrary to legislative intent. Absent a specific provision expressly amending C.A. No. 473, the law stands and its qualifications and disqualifications are maintained. Because petitioner elected judicial naturalization, his application must be governed by C.A. No. 473, including the requirement that the applicant be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing.

• Credibility of Character Witnesses: Character witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as insurers of the applicant's conduct and character and must testify on specific facts and events justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law. Atty. Adasa's testimony revealed that he was close to petitioner's family but not specifically to petitioner; his statements referred to the family's practices rather than to petitioner in particular. Salcedo likewise did not give specific details on petitioner's qualifications, instead reciting general statements and enumerating legal qualifications without concrete examples. Both witnesses merely parroted the provisions of the Naturalization Act in response to leading questions. Furthermore, the records did not show that the witnesses were persons of good standing in the community, honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. The most established was their educational attainment, which cannot be equated with credibility. Petitioner focused on building his own good moral character and neglected to establish the credibility and good moral character of his witnesses, as required by law.

• Government's Right to Appeal: A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court on any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize cancellation upon grounds arising subsequent to the grant. If the government can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the RTC decision within the reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court.

• Three Modes of Naturalization — Under current Philippine law, there are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as amended; and (c) legislative naturalization by a law enacted by Congress. The qualifications and disqualifications differ under each mode, and an applicant who elects one mode must comply with the requirements specific to that mode.

• Credibility of Character Witnesses in Naturalization Proceedings — A "credible person" within the purview of the naturalization law is not merely one who has not been convicted of a crime or has no police record. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. Such person must have good standing in the community, be known to be honest and upright, be reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and whose word may be taken on its face value as a good warranty of the applicant's worthiness. The applicant bears the burden of proving not only his own good moral character but also the good moral character and credibility of his witnesses. Witnesses must testify on specific facts and events, not merely parrot legal provisions.

• Naturalization as a Privilege, Not a Right — Admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges the Republic can confer upon an alien. It should not be conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it and upon strict compliance with the law.

• Non-Adversary Nature of Naturalization Proceedings — A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. The government's failure to oppose the petition before the lower court does not preclude it from appealing the decision within the reglementary period. A certificate of naturalization may even be cancelled if subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court on any material fact.

• "What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is that, a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the distinct applicability of R.A. No. 9139 versus C.A. No. 473, establishing that the two laws provide separate modes of naturalization with distinct qualification requirements.

• "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." — This is the canonical formulation of the standard for credibility of character witnesses in naturalization proceedings, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata." — This passage defines the procedural character of naturalization proceedings and the government's continuing authority to challenge the grant of citizenship.

• "It must be stressed that 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." — This passage states the governing principle that naturalization is a privilege requiring strict compliance with all legal requisites, not a right that may be liberally granted.

• Republic vs. Hong, G.R. No. 168877, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 405 — Followed as controlling precedent on the requirement that character witnesses must testify on specific facts and events, and that the applicant bears the burden of proving the good moral character and credibility of his witnesses.

• Ong vs. Republic of the Philippines, 103 Phil. 964 (1958) — Followed for the definition of a "credible person" in naturalization proceedings, requiring good standing in the community, honesty, uprightness, and trustworthiness.

• Ong Siao vs. Republic, 145 Phil. 143 (1970) — Followed for the same definition of credible character witnesses.

• Siao Tick Chong vs. Republic, 143 Phil. 134 (1970) — Followed for the same definition of credible character witnesses.

• Republic vs. Li Yao, G.R. No. 35947, October 20, 1992, 214 SCRA 748 — Followed on the principle that naturalization proceedings are not adversary in nature and that the government may appeal or seek cancellation of a certificate of naturalization despite non-opposition below.

• Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) — Sets forth the qualifications for judicial naturalization, including the requirement that the applicant be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition, continuous residence of not less than ten years, good moral character, ownership of real estate or a lucrative occupation, ability to speak and write English or Spanish and a principal Philippine language, and enrollment of minor children in recognized schools. Applied to hold that petitioner, being only twenty years, nine months, and twenty-five days old on the date of the first hearing, failed to meet the age qualification.

• Section 4, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Enumerates the disqualifications for naturalization, including opposition to organized government, advocacy of violence, polygamy, conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude, mental alienation or contagious diseases, failure to mingle socially with Filipinos, and citizenship of a nation at war with the Philippines. Applied as the benchmark against which petitioner's qualifications and disqualifications were measured.

• Sections 3 and 4, Republic Act No. 9139 (Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000) — Prescribes the qualifications and disqualifications for administrative naturalization, including the lower age requirement of eighteen years and the requirement that the applicant be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth. Held inapplicable to judicial naturalization proceedings under C.A. No. 473.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Associate Justice, Chairperson), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (Associate Justice), and Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice) concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.