G.R. No. 202809. July 2, 2014.

*
DENNIS L. GO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Citizenship; Citizenship is personal and more or less

permanent membership in a political community. It denotes
possession within that particular political community of full civil
and political rights subject to special disqualifications.
Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership
in a political community. It denotes possession within that
particular political community of full civil and political rights
subject to special disqualifications. Reciprocally, it imposes the
duty of allegiance to the political community. The core of
citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political rights, that is, the
right to participate in government principally through the

_______________

*THIRD DIVISION.

139

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 139

Go vs. Republic

right to vote, the right to hold public office and the right to
petition the government for redress of grievance.
Same; Naturalization; No less than the 1987 Constitution
enumerates who are Filipino citizens. Among those listed are
citizens by naturalization, which refers to the legal act of adopting
an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a nativeborn
citizen.No less than the 1987 Constitution enumerates who are
Filipino citizens. Among those listed are citizens by
naturalization, which refers to the legal act of adopting an alien
and clothing him with the privilege of a nativeborn citizen.
Under the present laws, the process of naturalization can be
judicial or administrative. Judicially, C.A. No. 473 provides that
after hearing the petition for citizenship and receipt of evidence
showing that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications required by law, the competent court may
order the issuance of the proper naturalization certificate and the
registration thereof in the proper civil registry. On the other
hand, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139 provides that aliens born and
residing in the Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship
by administrative proceeding by filing a petition for citizenship
with the Special Committee, which, in view of the facts before it,
may approve the petition and issue a certificate of naturalization.
In both cases, the petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance to the
Philippines as a sovereign nation.
Same; Same; Naturalization is not a right, but one of privilege
of the most discriminating, as well as delicate and exacting nature,
affecting, as it does, public interest of the highest order, and which
may be enjoyed only under the precise conditions prescribed by law
therefor.It is a wellentrenched rule that Philippine citizenship
should not easily be given away. All those seeking to acquire it
must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they have
complied with all the requirements of the law. The reason for this
requirement is simple. Citizenship involves political status;
hence, every person must be proud of his citizenship and should
cherish it. Verily, a naturalization case is not an ordinary judicial
contest, to be decided in favor of the party whose claim is
supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Naturalization is
not a right, but one of privilege of the most discriminating, as well
as delicate and exacting nature, affecting, as it does, public
interest of the highest order, and which

140

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

may be enjoyed only under the precise conditions prescribed by

law therefor.
Same; Same; An applicant for naturalization must comply
with the jurisdictional requirements, establish his or her
possession of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
enumerated under the law, and present at least two (2) character
witnesses to support his allegations.Jurisprudence dictates that
in judicial naturalization, the application must show substantial
and formal compliance with C.A. No. 473. In other words, an
applicant must comply with the jurisdictional requirements,
establish his or her possession of the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at
least two (2) character witnesses to support his allegations. In
Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, 103 Phil. 964 (1958), the Court
listed the requirements for character witnesses, namely: 1. That
they are citizens of the Philippines; 2. That they are credible
persons; 3. That they personally know the petitioner; 4. That
they personally know him to be a resident of the Philippines for
the period of time required by law; 5. That they personally know
him to be a person of good repute; 6. That they personally know
him to be morally irreproachable; 7. That he has, in their opinion,
all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the
Philippines; and 8. That he is not in any way disqualified under
the provisions of the Naturalization Law.
Same; Same; Character Witnesses; The law requires that the
character witnesses be not mere ordinary acquaintances of the
applicant, but possessed of such intimate knowledge of the latter as
to be competent to testify of their personal knowledge; and that
they have each one of the requisite qualifications and none of the
statutory disqualifications.In consonance with the above
dictum, in Lim Ching Tian v. Republic, 1 SCRA 622 (1961), the
Court explained that the law requires that a vouching witness
should have actually known an applicant for whom he testified for
the requisite period prescribed therein to give him the necessary
competence to act as such. The reason behind this requirement is
that a vouching witness is in a way an insurer of the character of
petitioner because on his testimony the court is of necessity
compelled to rely in deciding the merits of his petition. It is,
therefore, imperative that he be competent and reliable. And he is
only competent to testify on his conduct, character and moral
fitness if he has had the opportunity to observe

141

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 141

Go vs. Republic

him personally, if not intimately, during the period he has

allegedly known him. The law, in effect, requires that the
character witnesses be not mere ordinary acquaintances of the
applicant, but possessed of such intimate knowledge of the latter
as to be competent to testify of their personal knowledge; and that
they have each one of the requisite qualifications and none of the
statutory disqualifications.
Same; Same; It is indispensable that an applicant for
naturalization shows his identification with the Philippines as a
country deserving of his wholehearted allegiance.It bears
stressing that the CA was correct in finding that the testimonies
of petitioners witnesses only proved that he mingled socially with
Filipinos. While almost all of the witnesses testified that they
knew petitioner since birth and that they had interacted with
petitioners family in times of celebration, this did not satisfy the
other requirements set by law, that is, a genuine desire to learn
and embrace the Filipino ideals and traditions. Besides, both the
NBI and BOI reports cast doubt on petitioners alleged social
interaction with Filipinos. The background checks done on
petitioner yielded negative results due to the uncooperative
behavior of the members of his household. In fact, petitioner
himself disobliged when asked for an interview by BOI agents. To
the Court, this is a display of insincerity to embrace Filipino
customs, traditions and ideals. This leads to the inescapable
conclusion that petitioner failed to prove that he has all the
qualifications entitling him to the grant of Philippine citizenship.
Filipino citizenship is predicated upon oneness with the Filipino
people. It is indispensable that an applicant for naturalization
shows his identification with the Philippines as a country
deserving of his wholehearted allegiance. Until there is a positive
and unequivocal showing that this is so in the case of petitioner,
the Court must selfishly decline to confer Philippine citizenship
on one who remains an alien in principles and sentiment.
Same; Same; Residence; The inclusion of present and former
places of residence in the petition is a jurisdictional requirement,
without which the petition suffers from a fatal and congenital
defect which cannot be cured by evidence on the omitted matter at
the trial.It is noteworthy that the OSG was correct in arguing
that petitioners failure to state his former residence in the
petition was fatal to his application for naturalization. Indeed,
this omission had deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to hear
and decide the case.

142

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

Differently stated, the inclusion of present and former places of

residence in the petition is a jurisdictional requirement, without
which the petition suffers from a fatal and congenital defect which
cannot be cured by evidence on the omitted matter at the trial.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Real, Brotarlo & Real Law Office for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:
 Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
assailing the January 18, 2012 Decision1 and the July 23,
2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.G.R.
CV No. 95120, which reversed and set aside the November
18, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45,
Manila (RTC), by dismissing, without prejudice, the
petition for naturalization filed by Dennis L. Go
(petitioner).
The Facts
On October 13, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for
naturalization under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473,
the Revised Naturalization Law,3 with the RTC, where it
was docketed as Naturalization Case No. 03107591.

_______________

1Rollo, pp. 2942, penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo,

with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Franchito N. Diamante,
concurring.
2Id., at pp. 4344.
3 AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
NATURALIZATION, AND TO REPEAL ACTS NUMBERED

143

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 143

Go vs. Republic

Petitioner made the following allegations in his petition:

1] that he was born on May 7, 1982 in Manila to spouses
Felix and Emma Go, both Chinese nationals; 2] that he was
of legal age, Chinese national, single, with residence
address at No. 13081310 Oroquieta Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila, where he had been residing since birth; 3] that he
spoke English and Tagalog and has spent his elementary,
secondary and tertiary education in Philippine schools
where subjects on Philippine history, government and
civics were taught as part of the school curriculum; 4] that
he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution, was of good moral character and had
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines
in his relations with the constituted government as well as
with the community; 5] that he is not opposed to organized
government or is affiliated with any association or group of
persons that uphold and teach doctrines opposing all
organized governments; 6] that he did not defend or teach
the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or
assassination for the success and predominance of mens
ideas; 7] that he was neither a polygamist nor a believer in
polygamy; 8] that he had never been convicted of any crime
involving moral turpitude and was not suffering from
mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases; 9] that
he was not a citizen or subject of a nation at war with the
Philippines; 10] that it was his intention in good faith to
become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce
absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign state or sovereignty, particularly to China of which
he was a citizen; 11] that he would reside continuously in
the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up
to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship; and
12] that he was exempt from the filing of the Declaration of
Intention with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
under C.A. No. 473,

TWENTYNINE HUNDRED AND TWENTYSEVEN AND THIRTYFOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY

EIGHT."

144

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

Section 5, as he was born in the Philippines and received

his primary, secondary and tertiary education in the
country.
On September 11, 2003, the RTC set the initial hearing
of his petition on August 17, 2004. In compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements under Section 9 of C.A. No.
473,4 the notice was published in the Official Gazette and
in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, and was
posted in a conspicuous place at the Office of the Clerk of
Court.
During the hearings, petitioner testified to prove his
compliance with all the requirements for naturalization
and presented, as witnesses, Dr. Joseph Anlacan (Dr.
Anlacan), Dr. Edward C. Tordesillas (Dr. Tordesillas),
Silvino J. Ong (Ong), Teresita M. Go (Teresita), and Juan
C. Go (Juan).
Dr. Anlacan testified that based on the psychiatric
examination he conducted on petitioner, he had no
psychiatric

_______________
 4 Sec. 9. Notification and appearance.Immediately upon the filing of a
petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of court to publish the same at the
petitioners expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official
Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where
the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of
the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building
where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, birthplace, and
residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the
names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his
petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be
held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The
clerk shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the
naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the
Interior (now Office of the President), the Bureau of Justice (now Solicitor
General), the Provincial Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary of the province
(now Provincial Commander) and the Justice of the Peace of the municipality
wherein the petitioner resides (now the RTC).

145

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 145

Go vs. Republic

abnormality at the time of the test.5 Dr. Tordesillas, on the

other hand, reported that petitioners medical examination
results were normal. Ong, a friend of petitioners family,
stated that being their neighbor in Sto. Cristo Street, he
had known petitioner since childhood through his
association with the family in times of celebration. Teresita
claimed that she had personally known petitioner since
birth because he was the son of her brotherinlaw. She
described him as a peaceloving person who participated in
activities sponsored by his school and the barangay. Lastly,
Juan, a businessman by profession, also claimed that he
knew petitioner personally and that he had executed an
Affidavit of Support in his favor.
After petitioner presented his evidence and formally offered
the same,6 the Republic, through the OSG, posed no
objection as to the relevancy and competence of his
documentary evidence. The OSG further manifested that it
had no evidence to present and requested that the case be
submitted for decision based on petitioners evidence.7
The OSG, however, later moved for the reopening of trial
for the admission of its documentary evidence.8 It informed
the RTC that it had received a report, dated November 23,
2006, issued by the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI),9 tending to prove petitioners noncompliance with
the requirements of the law on naturalization.
On April 3, 2007, petitioner manifested to the RTC that
he had a clearance issued by the NBI as proof of his lack of
criminal record, and that he was not the same Dennis Go
who was the subject of the NBI Investigation Report being
offered in evidence by the OSG.

_______________

5Rollo, p. 86.
6Id., at pp. 120122.
7Id., at pp. 123126.
8Id., at pp. 127130.
9Id., at pp. 131132.

146

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

After the conduct of a clarificatory hearing, the RTC

issued its October 24, 2008 Order10 admitting the evidence
adduced by both parties, but denying the motion of the
OSG to reopen trial.On November 18, 2008, the RTC
rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization
ruling that the petitioner possessed the qualifications set
forth by law. Among these were petitioners lack of a
derogatory record, his support for an organized
government, his being in perfect health, his mingling with
Filipinos since birth and his ability to speak their
language, and his being a law abiding citizen. The RTC
likewise found that petitioner presented convincing
evidence that he was not disqualified for naturalization as
provided for under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473.11 The
dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

_______________

10Id., at pp. 142143.

11Section 4. Who are disqualified.The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine
citizens:
a. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any
association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;
b. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of
their ideas;
c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases;
f. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines,
have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a
 sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals
of the Filipinos;
g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the
Philippines are at war, during the period of such war;

147

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 147

Go vs. Republic

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition of DENNIS

L. GO for Naturalization as a Filipino Citizen is hereby
GRANTED. Upon finality of this Decision, before a Certificate of
Naturalization may be issued to him pursuant to the provisions of
Republic Act 530, Petitioner must take his oath of allegiance and
fidelity to the Republic of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.12

Not in conformity, the OSG moved for reconsideration

and the reopening of trial for the second time. This time, it
sought to be admitted, as evidence, a background
investigation report13 issued by the Bureau of Immigration
(BOI) stating the following reasons to oppose the petition,
among others: that petitioners parents remained as
Chinese citizens up to the present; that petitioners aunt
arrogantly refused to allow them to engage in an interview
while at their residence; and that the retail business of
petitioners family must be subjected to an investigation for
unexplained wealth and tax deficiencies.
On May 18, 2009, after an exchange of pleadings by the
parties, the RTC denied the OSGs motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.
On appeal to the CA, the OSG raised the following
arguments:
1) Evidence proving that petitioner did not possess the
qualifications or was disqualified from acquiring
Philippine citizenship may be received anytime prior to
the finality of judgment granting the application for
naturalization;

_______________

h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the

United States whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
12Rollo, pp. 151152.
13Id., at p. 158, dated March 29, 2005.

148
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Go vs. Republic

2) Petitioner failed to prove that he had all the

qualifications entitling him to the grant of Philippine
citizenship;
3) Petitioner failed to prove that his witnesses were
credible;
4) Petitioners character witnesses failed to prove that he
had all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications for the grant of Philippine citizenship;
and
5) Failure to state all former places of residence was fatal
to petitioners application for naturalization.
Petitioner countered that the RTC correctly denied the
OSGs motion for reconsideration as it was given several
opportunities to present its evidence and oppose the
petition, but did not. The OSG may not file a motion for the
purpose of reopening the case on a piecemeal basis on the
pretext that the government could, at all stages of the
proceedings, raise the issue of noncompliance with
naturalization laws. In any case, the background
investigation by the BOI yielded no reasonable ground to
deny the petition for naturalization because the citizenship
of his parents had nothing to do with it. The RTC decision
contained an exhaustive discussion showing that he
possessed all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided for by law.
In its assailed decision, the CA reversed and set aside
the RTC decision and dismissed, without prejudice, the
petition for naturalization. According to the CA, while
there was sufficient evidence from which petitioners ability
to write English or any of the principal Philippine
languages, may be inferred, he failed to adduce evidence to
prove that his witnesses were credible. He was not able to
prove that the persons he presented in court had good
standing in the community, known to be honest and
upright, reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and that
their word could be taken at face value, as a good warranty
of his worthiness.
Hence, this petition.
149

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 149

Go vs. Republic
 Petitioner insists that the findings of facts by the RTC
are fully supported by the evidence extant in the records of
the case, rendering its reversal by the CA, as unwarranted
and erroneous. The RTC was in a better position to
examine the real evidence and observe the demeanor of the
witnesses presented.
Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent
membership in a political community. It denotes possession
within that particular political community of full civil and
political rights subject to special disqualifications.
Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of allegiance to the
political community.14 The core of citizenship is the
capacity to enjoy political rights, that is, the right to
participate in government principally through the right to
vote, the right to hold public office and the right to petition
the government for redress of grievance.15
No less than the 1987 Constitution enumerates who are
Filipino citizens.16 Among those listed are citizens by
naturalization, which refers to the legal act of adopting an
alien and clothing him with the privilege of a nativeborn
citizen. Under the present laws, the process of
naturalization can be judicial or administrative. Judicially,
C.A. No. 473 provides that after hearing the petition for
citizenship and receipt of evidence showing that the
petitioner has all the qualifications

_______________

14 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines A Commentary, p. 629, 2009 edition.
15Id., at pp. 629630.
16 Article IV, Section 1. The following are citizens of the
Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

and none of the disqualifications required by law, the

competent court may order the issuance of the proper
naturalization certificate and the registration thereof in
the proper civil registry. On the other hand, Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9139 provides that aliens born and residing in
the Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship by
administrative proceeding by filing a petition for
citizenship with the Special Committee, which, in view of
the facts before it, may approve the petition and issue a
certificate of naturalization.17 In both cases, the petitioner
shall take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a
sovereign nation.
It is a wellentrenched rule that Philippine citizenship
should not easily be given away. All those seeking to
acquire it must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that
they have complied with all the requirements of the law.18
The reason for this requirement is simple. Citizenship
involves political status; hence, every person must be proud
of his citizenship and should cherish it. Verily, a
naturalization case is not an ordinary judicial contest, to be
decided in favor of the party whose claim is supported by
the preponderance of the evidence. Naturalization is not a
right, but one of privilege of the most discriminating, as
well as delicate and exacting nature, affecting, as it does,
public interest of the highest order, and which may be
enjoyed only under the precise conditions prescribed by law
therefor.19
Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization, the
application must show substantial and formal compliance
with C.A. No. 473. In other words, an applicant must
comply with the jurisdictional requirements, establish his
or her

17 Republic Act No. 9139 entitled AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE

ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN ALIENS BY
ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
18Felipe Tochip v. Republic, No. L19637, October 26, 1965, 13
SCRA 251.
19Cuaki Tan Si v. Republic, No. L18006, October 31, 1962, 6
SCRA 545, 546 (1962).

151

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 151

Go vs. Republic

possession of the qualifications and none of the

disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at
least two (2) character witnesses to support his
allegations.20 In Ong v. Republic of the Philippines,21 the
Court listed the requirements for character witnesses,
namely:
1.That they are citizens of the Philippines;
2.That they are credible persons;
3.That they personally know the petitioner;

_______________

20Section 7. Petition for citizenship.Any person desiring to

acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court,
a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the
petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and
former places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of
his birth; whether single or married and the father of children,
the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of
the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the
Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he
remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a
declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act,
specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for
naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has
complied with the requirements of Section five of this Act; and
that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date
of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to
Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the
applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the
affidavit 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 and a person of good repute
and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has
in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become
a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way
disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition
shall also set forth the names and postoffice addresses of such
witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing
of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of
intention must be made part of the petition.
21103 Phil. 964 (1958).

152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

4.That they personally know him to be a resident of the

Philippines for the period of time required by law;
5.That they personally know him to be a person of good
repute;
6. That they personally know him to be morally
irreproachable;
7. That he has, in their opinion, all the qualifications
necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines; and
 8. That he is not in any way disqualified under the
provisions of the Naturalization Law.
In vouching for the good moral character of the
applicant for citizenship, a witness, for purposes of
naturalization, must be a credible person as he becomes
an insurer of the character of the candidate.22 The Court, in
Ong, explained:

a credible person is, to our mind, 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 worthiness of the petitioner.

In consonance with the above dictum, in Lim Ching

Tian v. Republic,23 the Court explained that the law
requires that a vouching witness should have actually
known an applicant for whom he testified for the requisite
period prescribed therein to give him the necessary
competence to act as such. The reason behind this
requirement is that a vouching witness is

_______________

22Cu v. Republic, 89 Phil. 473 (1951).

23111 Phil. 211; 1 SCRA 622 (1961).

153

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 153

Go vs. Republic

in a way an insurer of the character of petitioner because

on his testimony the court is of necessity compelled to rely
in deciding the merits of his petition. It is, therefore,
imperative that he be competent and reliable. And he is
only competent to testify on his conduct, character and
moral fitness if he has had the opportunity to observe him
personally, if not intimately, during the period he has
allegedly known him. The law, in effect, requires that the
character witnesses be not mere ordinary acquaintances of
the applicant, but possessed of such intimate knowledge of
the latter as to be competent to testify of their personal
knowledge; and that they have each one of the requisite
qualifications and none of the statutory disqualifications.
In this case, the OSG mainly harps on the petitioners
failure to prove that his witnesses are credible.
The Court agrees.
The records of the case show that the joint affidavits
executed by petitioners witnesses did not establish their
own qualification to stand as such in a naturalization
proceeding. In turn, petitioner did not present evidence
proving that the persons he presented were credible. In the
words of the CA, he did not prove that his witnesses had
good standing in the community, known to be honest and
upright, reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and that
their word may be taken at face value, as a good warranty
of the worthiness of petitioner.24
While there is no showing that petitioners witnesses
were of doubtful moral inclinations, there was likewise no
indication that they were persons whose qualifications
were at par with the requirements of the law on
naturalization. Simply put, no evidence was ever proffered
to prove the witnesses good standing in the community,
honesty, moral uprightness, and most importantly,
reliability. As a consequence, their

24Rollo, p. 37.

154

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

statements about the petitioner do not possess the measure

of credibility demanded of in naturalization cases. This
lack of credibility on the part of the witnesses,
unfortunately, weakens or renders futile petitioners claim
of worthiness. An applicant for Philippine citizenship
would carefully testify as to his qualifications, placing
emphasis on his good traits and character. This is expected
of a person who longs to gain benefits and advantages that
Philippine citizenship bestows. Therefore, a serious
assessment of an applicants witnesses, both as to the
credibility of their person and their very testimony, is an
essential facet of naturalization proceedings that may not
be brushed aside.
Further, petitioners witnesses only averred general
statements without specifying acts or events that would
exhibit petitioners traits worthy of the grant of Philippine
citizenship. For instance, a statement in their affidavits as
to petitioners adherence to the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution is not evidence, per se, of
petitioners agreement and zeal to Philippine ideals. These
appear to be empty declarations if not coming from credible
witnesses.
It bears stressing that the CA was correct in finding that
the testimonies of petitioners witnesses only proved that
he mingled socially with Filipinos. While almost all of the
witnesses testified that they knew petitioner since birth
and that they had interacted with petitioners family in
times of celebration, this did not satisfy the other
requirements set by law, that is, a genuine desire to learn
and embrace the Filipino ideals and traditions. Besides,
both the NBI and BOI reports cast doubt on petitioners
alleged social interaction with Filipinos. The background
checks done on petitioner yielded negative results due to
the uncooperative behavior of the members of his
household. In fact, petitioner himself disobliged when
asked for an interview by BOI agents.
To the Court, this is a display of insincerity to embrace
Filipino customs, traditions and ideals. This leads to the
inescapable conclusion that petitioner failed to prove that
he

155

VOL. 729, JULY 2, 2014 155

Go vs. Republic

has all the qualifications entitling him to the grant of

Philippine citizenship. Filipino citizenship is predicated
upon oneness with the Filipino people. It is indispensable
that an applicant for naturalization shows his
identification with the Philippines as a country deserving
of his wholehearted allegiance. Until there is a positive and
unequivocal showing that this is so in the case of
petitioner, the Court must selfishly decline to confer
Philippine citizenship on one who remains an alien in
principles and sentiment.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the OSG was correct in
arguing that petitioners failure to state his former
residence in the petition was fatal to his application for
naturalization. Indeed, this omission had deprived the trial
court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Differently
stated, the inclusion of present and former places of
residence in the petition is a jurisdictional requirement,
without which the petition suffers from a fatal and
congenital defect which cannot be cured by evidence on the
omitted matter at the trial.25
Here, a character witness had unwittingly revealed that
he and petitioner were neighbors in Sto. Cristo Street
before the latters family transferred to their declared
residential address in Oroquieta Street. This proves that
petitioners former residence was excluded in his
allegations contained in the published petition. In effect,
there was an unpardonable lapse committed in the course
of petitioners compliance to the jurisdictional requirements
set be law, rendering the trial courts decision, not only as
erroneous, but void.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January
18, 2012 Decision and the July 23, 2012 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CV No. 95120 are
AFFIRMED. As

_______________

25 Miguel Chun Eng Go v. Republic of the Philippines, 127

Phil. 43; 20 SCRA 679 (1967), citing Lo v. Republic, 111 Phil.
1036; 2 SCRA 13 (1961).

156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Republic

stated in the decision of the Court of Appeals, the dismissal

is without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr.**

and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.It is the State, through its representatives

designated by statute, that may question the illegally or
invalidly procured certificate of naturalization in the
appropriate denaturalization proceedings it is plainly
not a matter that may be raised by private persons in an
election case involving the naturalized citizens descendant.
(Limkaichong vs. Commission on Elections, 583 SCRA 1
[2009])
Departure of respondent recognized as a Filipino citizen
and who intends to return here did not render his revoked
application for citizenship moot. (Gonzalez vs. Pennisi, 614
SCRA 292 [2010])
 o0o

_______________

**Designated acting member in view of the vacancy in the

Third Division per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.