SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 013 28/10/2018, 10(36 PM

VOL. 13, FEBRUARY 26, 1965 267

Yap vs. Republic

No. L-19846. February 26, 1965.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JUAN YAP TO

BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.JUAN
YAP, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Citizenship; Naturalization; Lucrative trade not proven by

monthly income of P150 with wife and three children to support.·
Where petitionerÊs only income is P150 a month, such income is
insufficient to warrant the conclusion that he has a lucrative trade,
particularly considering that he has to support a wife and three
children.
Same; Same; Character witnessesÊ general reputation for
honesty and integrity must be affirmatively proven.·The mere fact
that petitionerÊs character witnesses are government employees is
not enough. Petitioner has to comply with his duty to prove
affirmatively that these witnesses enjoy such a general reputation
for honesty and integrity as to qualify them to vouch for him as one
suitable for naturalization.

APPEAL for review of a decision of the Court of First

Instance of Misamis Occidental.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Teodorico M. Durias for petitioner-appellee.
Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.

CONCEPCION, J.:

The Solicitor General seeks the review of a decision of the

Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental granting the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166bb174aa98b27d5f9003600fb002c009e/p/APN115/?username=Guest Page 1 of 3
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 013 28/10/2018, 10(36 PM

petition for naturalization of appellee Juan Yap. Appellant

maintains that petitioner does not have a lucrative trade or
occupation, and that his witnesses are not credible persons.
Indeed, it is admitted that petitioner owns no real estate
whatsoever. Moreover, his only income is P150.00 a month,
as a weigher in the Western Products, Co., Inc. As we

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yap vs. Republic

ruled in Ong vs. Republic (G.R. No. L-15754, May 19,

1961), such income is insufficient to warrant the conclusion
that he has a lucrative trade, particularly considering that
he has to support a wife and three children (Jew Chong vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-14343, May 23, 1961; Tan vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961; Sy Cesar vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-14009, May 31, 1961; Ong Tai vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-19418, December 23, 1964).
Again, petitionerÊs character witnesses were Benedicto
Labastida and Severo E. Banci. The former is an
administrative deputy in the office of the city treasurer of
Ozamis City, whereas the latter had been its municipal
treasurer from 1923 to 1930. The records do not show that
petitioner has complied with his duty to prove affirmatively
that these witnesses enjoy such a general reputation for
honesty and integrity as to qualify them, to the extent
required by the Naturalization Law, to vouchsafe for herein
applicant appellee as one suitable for naturalization (Te
Tay Seng vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15956, March 30, 1963;
Sehwani vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-18219, December 27,
1963; Ong Ling Chuan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550,
February 28, 1964).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
reversed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L.,

Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and
Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166bb174aa98b27d5f9003600fb002c009e/p/APN115/?username=Guest Page 2 of 3
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 013 28/10/2018, 10(36 PM

Decision reversed.

Notes.·The law requires that a vouching witness

should have actually known an applicant for whom he
testifies for the requisite period prescribed therein to give
him the necessary competency 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

269

VOL. 13, FEBRUARY 26, 1965 269

Vda. de Aguinaldo vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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 he does not possess that knowledge, he is not
qualified to act as a character witness for the applicant.
(Lim Ching Tian vs. Republic, 1 SCRA 622; see also the
annotation thereunder entitled „Character Witness‰, and
the note under Song Siong Hay Uy vs. Republic, ante.)
Cf. Say Chong Hai vs. Republic, 27 SCRA 1008, and the
cases cited therein.

______________

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166bb174aa98b27d5f9003600fb002c009e/p/APN115/?username=Guest Page 3 of 3