9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 267

So vs. Republic

*
G.R. No. 170603. January 29, 2007.

EDISON SO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Citizenship; Naturalization; Commonwealth Act No. 473;

Republic Act No. 9139; Under current and existing laws, 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 in the form of a law
enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
—Naturalization signifies the

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a

nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.
Under current and existing laws, 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 in the form of a law enacted by
Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The qualifications and

disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial act
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

are set forth in Sections 2 and 4 of C.A. No. 473 while Sections 3
and 4 of R.A. No. 9139 provide for the qualifications and
disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by
administrative act.—Petitioner’s contention that the
qualifications an applicant for naturalization should possess are
those provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and not those set forth in C.A.
No. 473 is barren of merit. The qualifications and
disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial act
are set forth in Sections 2 and 4 of C.A. No. 473. On the other
hand, Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 9139 provide for the
qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for
naturalization by administrative act. Indeed, R.A. No. 9139 was
enacted as a remedial measure intended to make the process of
acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and
more encouraging. It likewise addresses the concerns of degree
holders who, by reason of lack of citizenship requirement, cannot
practice their profession, thus promoting “brain gain” for the
Philippines. These however, do not justify petitioner’s contention
that the qualifications set forth in said law apply even to
applications for naturalization by judicial act.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Although the legislature believes

that there is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the
Philippines, there is nothing from which it can be inferred that
C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed by R.A. No.
9139—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.—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 native-born aliens who
lived here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any
other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who
have demonstrated love and loyalty to

269

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 269

So vs. Republic

the Philippines and affinity to the customs and traditions. To

reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No.
9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship
less tedious, less technical and more encouraging which is
administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the
legislature believes that there is a need to liberalize the
naturalization law of the Philippines, there is nothing from which
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

it can be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended

or repealed by R.A. No. 9139. 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.

Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Character witnesses in

naturalization proceedings stand as insurers of the applicant’s
conduct and character—they ought to testify on specific facts and
events justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law.—
Petitioner failed to prove that the witnesses he presented were
competent to vouch for his good moral character, and are
themselves possessed of good moral character. It must be stressed
that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as
insurers of the applicant’s conduct and character. Thus, they
ought to testify on specific facts and events justifying the
inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided by law.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Within the

purview of the naturalization law, a “credible person” is 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.—In naturalization proceedings, it is the
burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral
character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses,
who must be credible persons. Within the purview of the
naturalization law, a “credible person” is 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

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty
of the applicant’s worthiness. The records likewise do not show
that the character witnesses of petitioner are persons of good
standing in the community; that they are honest and upright, or
reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. The most that was
established was the educational attainment of the witnesses;
however, this cannot be equated with their credibility. In fine,
petitioner focused on presenting evidence tending to build his own
good moral character and neglected to establish the credibility
and good moral character of his witnesses.

Same; Same; 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 upon any material fact.—We
do not agree with petitioner’s argument that respondent is
precluded from questioning the RTC decision because of its failure
to oppose the petition. 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 upon any material
fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a
certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions arising
subsequent to the granting of the certificate. If the government
can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more reason can it
appeal the decision of the RTC within the reglementary period
despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court.

Same; Same; Citizenship is one of the highest privileges that

the Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien.—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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

271

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 271

So vs. Republic

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

     Ching, David, Mendoza, Quilas and Law Offices for

petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for respondent.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Assailed1 in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the

Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
2
in CA-G.R. CV No.
80437 which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8, in Naturalization Case
No. 02102984. Likewise assailed is the appellate court’s
Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration of its
Decision.

Antecedents

On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison

3
So filed before the
RTC a Petition for Naturalization under Commonwealth
Act (C.A.) No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, as amended. He alleged the following
in his petition:
He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a
Chinese citizen who has lived in No. 528 Lavezares St.,
Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee, he derives an
average annual income of around P100,000.00 with free
board and lodging and other benefits; he is single, able to
speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; he is
exempt from the filing of Declaration of Intention to
become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, as amended, because he
was born in the Philippines, and studied in a school
recognized by the Govern-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (Chairman), with

Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 51-61.
2 Penned by Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.; id., at pp. 21-23.
3 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

ment where Philippine history, government and culture are

taught; he is a person of good moral character; he believes
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

in the principles underlying the Philippine constitution; he

has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in his relation with the constituted government
as well as with the community in which he is living; he has
mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions
and ideals of the Filipino people; he has all the
qualifications provided under Section 2 and none of the
disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, as
amended; he is not opposed to organized government or
affiliated with any association or group of persons who
uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments; he is not defending or teaching the necessity
or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination
for the success or predominance of men’s ideas; he is not a
polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy; he has
not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
he is not suffering from any incurable contagious diseases
or from mental alienation; the nation of which he is a
citizen is not at war with the Philippines; it is 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 prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and
particularly to China; and he will reside continuously in
the Philippines from the time of the filing of the petition up
to the time of his admission as citizen of the Philippines.
The petition was docketed as Naturalization Case No. 02-
102984. 4
Attached to the petition were the Joint Affidavit of Atty.
Artemio Adasa, Jr. and Mark B. Salcedo; and petitioner’s

_______________

4 Exhibit “M”; Records, p. 3.

273

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 273

So vs. Republic

5 6
Certificate of Live Birth, Alien Certificate
7
of Registration,
and Immigrant Certificate of Residence. 8
On March 22, 2002, the RTC issued an Order setting
the petition for hearing at 8:30 a.m. of December 12 and 17,
2002 during which all persons concerned were enjoined to
show cause, if any, why the petition should not be granted.
The entire petition and its annexes, including the order,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

were ordered published once a week for three consecutive

weeks in the Official Gazette and also in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Manila. The RTC likewise
ordered that copies of the petition and notice be posted in
public and9
conspicuous places in the Manila City Hall
Building.
Petitioner thus caused the publication of the above
order, as well as the entire petition
10
and its annexes, in
11
the
Official Gazette on May 20, 2002 and May 27, 2002, and
in Today, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Manila, on May 25, 2002 and June 1, 2002.
No one opposed the petition. During the hearing,
petitioner presented Atty. Adasa, Jr. who testified that he
came to know petitioner in 1991 as the legal consultant and
adviser of the So family’s business. He would usually
attend parties and other social functions hosted by
petitioner’s family. He knew petitioner to be obedient,
hardworking, and possessed of good moral character,
including all the qualifications mandated by law. Atty.
Adasa, Jr. further testified that petitioner was gainfully
employed and presently resides at No. 528 Lavezares
Street, Binondo, Manila; petitioner had been practicing
Philippine tradition and those embodied in the
Constitution; petitioner had been socially active, mingled
with some of his

_______________

5 Exhibit “N”; id., at p. 5.

6 Exhibit “O”; id., at p. 6.
7 Exhibit “O-1”; id., at p. 7.
8 Rollo, pp. 16-17.
9 Id., at p. 17.
10 Vol. 98, No. 20, pp. 2546-2553.
11 Vol. 98, No. 21, pp. 2720-2727

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

neighbors and had conducted himself in a proper and

irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the
Philippines; and petitioner and his family observed
Christmas and New Year and some occasions such as
fiestas. According to the witness, petitioner was not
disqualified under C.A. No. 473 to become a Filipino
citizen: he is not opposed to organized government or
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

believes in the use of force; he is not a polygamist and has

not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
neither is he suffering
12
from any mental alienation or any
incurable disease.
Another witness for petitioner, Mark Salcedo, testified
that he has known petitioner for ten (10) years; they first
met at a birthday party in 1991. He and petitioner were
classmates at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) where
they took up Pharmacy. Petitioner was a member of some 13
school organizations and mingled well with friends.
Salcedo further testified that he saw petitioner twice a
week, and during fiestas and special occasions when he
would go to petitioner’s house. He has known petitioner to
have resided in Manila since birth. Petitioner is intelligent,
a person of good moral character, and believes in the
principles of the Philippine Constitution. Petitioner has a
gainful occupation, has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner and has all the qualifications to
become a Filipino citizen.
Petitioner also testified and attempted to prove that he
has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
to become a citizen of the Philippines.
At the conclusion of his testimonial evidence, petitioner
offered in evidence
14
the following documents: (1) Certificate
15
of Live Birth; (2) Alien Certificate of Registration; (3)
Immi-

_______________

12 TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 4-13.

13 Id., at pp. 14-29.
14 Exhibit “N”; records, p. 5.
15 Exhibit “O”; id., at p. 6.

275

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 275

So vs. Republic

16 17
grant Certificate of Residence;
18
(4) Elementary Pupil’s
and High School Student’s Permanent Record issued by
Chang Kai Shek College; (5) Transcript
19
of Record issued by
the University of Santo Tomas; (6) Certification
20
of Part-
Time Employment dated November 20, 2002; (7) Income
Tax Returns21 and Certificate of Withholding Tax for the
year 2001; (8) Certification
22
from Metrobank that
petitioner is a depositor; (9) Clearances that he has not
been charged or convicted of any crime involving moral
23
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
23
turpitude; and (10) Medical Certificates and Psychiatric
24
Evaluation issued by the Philippine General Hospital. The
RTC admitted all these in evidence. 25
The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003. The
fallo of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the

petition and declaring that petitioner EDISON SO has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a
Filipino citizen and he is hereby admitted as citizen of the
Philippines, after taking the necessary oath of allegiance, as soon
as this decision becomes final, subject to payment of cost of
P30,000.00. 26
SO ORDERED.”

The trial court ruled that the witnesses for petitioner had
known him for the period required by law, and they had
affirmed that petitioner had all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. Thus,
the

_______________

16 Exhibit “O-1”; id., at p. 7.

17 Exhibit “P”; id., at p. 83.
18 Exhibit “P-1”; id., at p. 84.
19 Exhibits “P-3” and “P-3A”; id., at pp. 86-87.
20 Exhibit “Q”; id., at p. 87.
21 Exhibit “Q-2”; id., at p. 90.
22 Exhibit “R”; id., at p. 91.
23 Exhibits “S,” “S-1,” “S-2” and “S-3”; id., at pp. 92-95.
24 Exhibits “T” to “T-5”; id., at pp. 97-102.
25 Rollo, pp. 21-23.
26 Id., at p. 23.

276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

court concluded that petitioner had satisfactorily supported

his petition with evidence.
Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the decision
to the CA on the following grounds:

I.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

HE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION

FOR NATURALIZATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
TWO (2) CHARACTER WITNESSES, NAMELY: ARTEMIO
ADASA, JR. AND MARK SALCEDO WERE NOT QUALIFIED
CHARACTER WITNESSES.

II.

PETITIONER IS NOT QUALIFIED

27
TO BE ADMITTED AS
CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Respondent contended that based on the evidence on

record, appellee failed to prove that he possesses all the
qualifications under Section 2 and none of the
disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473. It insisted
that his two (2) character witnesses did not know him well
enough to vouch for his fitness to become a Filipino citizen;
they merely made general statements without giving 28
specific details about his character and moral conduct.
The witnesses
29
did not even reside in the same place as
petitioner. Respondent likewise argued that petitioner
himself failed to prove that he is qualified to become a
Filipino citizen because he did not give any explanation or
specific answers to the questions propounded by his lawyer.
He merely answered “yes” or “no” or gave general
statements in answer to his counsel’s questions. Thus,
petitioner was unable to prove that he had all the
qualifications

_______________

27 Id., at p. 26.
28 Id., at p. 38.
29 Id., at p. 39.

277

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 277

So vs. Republic

and none of the disqualifications

30
required by law to be a
naturalized Filipino citizen.
On the other hand, petitioner averred that he graduated
cum laude from the UST with the degree of Bachelor of
Science in Pharmacy. He is now on his second year as a
medical student at the UST Medicine and Surgery. He
avers that the requirements for naturalization under C.A.
No. 473, as amended by LOI 270, in relation to Presidential
Decree Nos. 836 and 1379, had been relaxed after the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

Philippine government entered into diplomatic relations

with the People’s Republic of China; the requirements were
further relaxed 31when Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139 was
signed into law. Petitioner pointed out that the petition,
with all its annexes, was published in the official gazette
and a newspaper of general circulation; notices were
likewise sent to the National Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, Department of Foreign Affairs, and
the OSG. But none from these offices came32 forward to
oppose the petition before the lower court. Petitioner
insisted that he has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become Filipino. This was clearly
established by his witnesses.
In its Reply Brief, respondent alleged that R.A. No. 9139
applies to administrative naturalization filed with the
Special Committee on Naturalization. It insisted that even
in the absence of any opposition, a petition for
naturalization may33
be dismissed.
In its Decision dated August 4, 2005, the CA set aside
the ruling of the RTC and dismissed34
the petition for
naturalization without prejudice. According to the CA,
petitioner’s two

_______________

30 Id., at p. 43.
31 Id., at p. 46.
32 Id., at p. 47.
33 Id., at pp. 51-61.
34 The dispositive portion reads:

278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

(2) witnesses were not credible because they failed to

mention specific details of petitioner’s life or character to
show how well they knew him; they merely “parroted” the
provisions of the Naturalization Act without clearly 35
explaining their applicability to petitioner’s case. The
appellate court likewise ruled that petitioner failed to
comply with the requirement of the law that the applicant
must not be less than 21 years of age on the day of the
hearing of the petition; during the first hearing on
December 12, 2002, petitioner was only twenty (20) years,
nine (9) months, and36 twenty five (25) days old, falling short
of the requirement. The CA stated, however, that it was
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

not its intention to forever close the door to any future

application for naturalization which petitioner would file,
and that it believes that he would make a good37Filipino
citizen in due time, a decided asset to this38country.
Petitioner’s
39
motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated November 24, 2005; hence, the present
petition grounded on the sole issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED
THE DECISION
40
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MANILA.

_______________

UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the decision appealed from
must be, as it is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. The petition for
naturalization subject of Case No. 02-102984 is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
No costs.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 61)

35 Id., at p. 59.
36 Id., at p. 60.
37 Id.
38 Id., at pp. 62-64.
39 Id., at p. 65.
40 Id., at p. 6.

279

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 279

So vs. Republic

In support of his petition, petitioner reiterates the

arguments he set forth
41
in the Brief filed before the CA.
In its Comment on the petition, respondent countered
that R.A. No. 9139 (which took effect on August 8, 2001
and where the applicant’s age requirement was lowered to
eighteen (18) years old), refers only to administrative
naturalization filed with the Special Committee on
Naturalization; it does not apply to judicial 42naturalization
before the court, as in the present case. Respondent,
through the OSG, avers that its failure to oppose the
petition before the court a quo does not preclude it from
appealing the decision of the RTC to the CA; it is even
authorized to question an already final43 decision by filing a
petition for cancellation of citizenship. Lastly, respondent
reiterates its argument that petitioner’s character

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

witnesses are not qualified to prove the former’s

qualifications.
In determining whether or not an applicant for
naturalization is entitled to become a Filipino citizen, it is
necessary to resolve the following issues: (1) whether or not
R.A. No. 9139 applies to petitions for naturalization by
judicial act; and (2) whether or not the witnesses presented
by petitioner are “credible” in accordance with the
jurisprudence and the definition and guidelines set forth in
C.A. No. 473.
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a
foreigner into the political body of a nation
44
by clothing him
or her with the privileges of a citizen. Under current and
existing laws, 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 naturali-

_______________

41 Id., at pp. 79-91.

42 Id., at pp. 84-85.
43 Id., at pp. 88-89.
44 RECORD,SENATE11THCONGRESS (June 4-5, 2001).

280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

zation in the form of a law enacted 45

by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.
Petitioner’s contention that the qualifications an
applicant for naturalization should possess are those
provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and not those set forth in
C.A. No. 473 is barren of merit. The qualifications and
disqualifications of an applicant for 46
naturalization by
judicial act are set forth in Sections 2

_______________

45 R.E. Agpalo, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, 2005 ed., pp. 63-64.

46 Section 2. Qualifications.—Subject to section four of this Act, any
person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the
Philippines by naturalization:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of
the hearing of the petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous
period of not less than ten years;
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is
living;
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than
five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any
one of the principal Philippine languages; and
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of
the public schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the
Philippines (now the Department of Education, Culture and Sports),
where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed
as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of residence in
the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of this petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen.

281

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 281

So vs. Republic

47 48
and 4 of C.A. No. 473. On the other hand, Sections 3 and

_______________

47 Section 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 of the success and
predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamist 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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

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;
(h) Citizens or subject of a foreign country other than United States,
whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized
citizens or subjects thereof.

48 Section 3. Qualifications.—Subject to the provisions of the succeeding

section, any person desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act must meet
the following qualifications:

(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein
since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at
the time of filing of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the
underlying principles of the Constitution, and must have
conducted himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his
relation with the duly constituted government as well as with the
community in which he/she is living;

282

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

49
4 of R.A. No. 9139 provide for the qualifications and
disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by
administrative act.

_______________

(d) The applicant must have received hid/her primary and secondary
education in any public school or private educational institution
duly recognized by the Department of Education Culture and
Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are
taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and whose
enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality; Provided, That
should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must have
enrolled them in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or
lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income sufficient for
his/her support and if he/she is married and/or has dependents,
also that of his/her family; Provided, however, That this shall not
apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

to practice their profession because they are disqualified to do so

by reason of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or
any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipino people.

49 Section 4. Who are disqualified.—The following cannot be

naturalized as Philippine citizens:

(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any

association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
personal assault, or assassination of the success and predominance
of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines,
have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who

283

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 283

So vs. Republic

Indeed, R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial measure

intended to make the process of acquiring Philippine
citizenship 50less tedious, less technical and more
encouraging. It likewise addresses the concerns of degree
holders who, by reason of lack of citizenship requirement,
cannot practice their profession,
51
thus promoting “brain
gain” for the Philippines. These however, do not justify
petitioner’s contention that the qualifications set forth in
said law apply even to applications for naturalization by
judicial act.
First. 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 native-born aliens who lived
here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any
other country and all along thought that they were
Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to52the
Philippines and affinity to the customs and traditions. To
reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

No. 9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine

citizenship less tedious, less technical and more
encouraging which is administrative rather than judicial in
nature. Thus, although the legislature believes that there
is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the
Philippines, there is nothing from which it can be inferred
that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed
by R.A. No. 9139. 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

_______________

have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the

customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during
the period of such war;
(h) Citizens or subjects whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

50 Sponsorship Speech of the late Senator Cayetano, RECORD,

SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June 4-5, 2001).
51 Id.
52 RECORD, SENATE 11TH CONGRESS (June 4 and 5, 2001).

284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

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.
In the instant case, petitioner applied for naturalization
by judicial act, though at the time of the filing of his
petition, administrative naturalization under R.A. No. 9139
was al- ready available. Consequently, his application
should be governed by C.A. No. 473.
Second. If the qualifications prescribed in R.A. No. 9139
would be made applicable even to judicial naturalization,
the coverage of the law would be broadened since it would
then apply even to aliens who are not native born. It must
be stressed that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to aliens who
were born in the Philippines and have been residing here.
Third. Applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to
judicial naturalization is contrary to the intention of the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

legislature to liberalize the naturalization procedure in the

country. One of the qualifications set forth in R.A. No. 9139
is that the applicant was born in the Philippines and
should have been residing herein since birth. Thus, one
who was born here but left the country, though resided for
more than ten (10) years from the filing of the application
is also disqualified. On the other hand, if we maintain the
distinct qualifications under each of the two laws, an alien
who is not qualified under R.A. No. 9139 may still be
naturalized under C.A. No. 473.
Thus, absent a specific provision expressly amending
C.A. No. 473, the law stands and the qualifications and
disqualifications set forth therein are maintained.
In any event, petitioner failed to prove that the
witnesses he presented were competent to vouch for his
good moral character, and are themselves possessed of good
moral character. It must be stressed that character
witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as insurers
of the applicant’s conduct and character. Thus, they ought
to testify on specific facts and events justifying the
inference that the applicant
285

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 285

So vs. Republic

possesses all the qualifications 53

and none of the
disqualifications provided by law.
Petitioner’s witnesses, Atty. Adasa and Salcedo, did not
testify on his specific acts; they did not elaborate on his
traits. Their testimonies do not convince the Court that
they personally know petitioner well and are therefore in a
position to vouch for his qualifications. As correctly found
by the CA, the witnesses’ testimonies consisted mainly of
general statements in answer to the leading questions
propounded by his counsel. What they conveniently did was
to enumerate the qualifications as set forth in the law
without giving specific details. The pertinent portion of
Atty. Adasa’s testimony follows:

q Do you know the petitioner Edison So?

a Yes, Sir.
q Will you please tell us how did you come to know him?
a Well I came to know him[,] the petitioner[,] when I was
the legal consultant and adviser of their family business

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

and I used to ah (sic) me[e]t him during my visit to their

place way back in 1991 to 1992.
q From that day of 1991 up to the present, is your
relationship with the petitioner more or less
contin[u]ous?
a Yes, sir, because aside from the usual professional visit
that I did to their family some social function was
sponsored normally and I am (sic) invited and I used to
attend.
q During the birthday party of the petitioner, did you
usually attend petitioner’s birthday?
a On several occasions I attend the birthday.
q Will you please tell us where the petitioner resides at
present?
a At present the petitioner resides at No. 528 Lavezares
Street, Binondo, Manila.

_______________

53 Republic v. Hong, G.R. No. 168877, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 405,
413.

286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

q Do you know for how long the petitioner resides in the

Philippines?
a As far as I personally known (sic) Your Honor is that
since birth.
q During all the times that you have know[n] the
petitioner, what is your impression of his conduct?
a Well ah (sic) I have personally known him to be obedient
and hard working individual and ah (sic) he has a good
moral character and he has been ah (sic) no adverse
report concerning the character of the petitioner.
q In your opinion does the petitioner has the qualifications
necessary to become [a] citizen of the Philippines?
a Yes.
q Can you tell us why do you say so?
a I would say Your Honor that petitioner has posses (sic)
all the qualifications mandated by law and presently he
is more than 21 years old and he has resided in the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

Philippines particularly in the City of Manila

contin[u]ously for more than ten (10) years and that
since his birth; and that he has good moral character
and I have observed that ah (sic) he has been practicing
Philippine traditions and ah (sic) those embodied in the
Philippine constitution and he has been socially active
and meddle (sic) some of his neighbors and ah (sic) I am
sure he has desire to embrace and learn the customs and
ideas and traditions in the Philippine[s] and as I earlier
mentioned that he conducted himself in proper and
approachable (sic) manner during his entire residence in
our country and he has a gainful occupation.
q Will you please tell us what are these customs which the
petitioner embraced?
a Well I have observed that ah (sic) together with his
family they used to ah observed (sic) the usual Filipino
celebration during Christmas and new year and some
occas ions such as fiestas.
q And do you know whether petitioner is not disqualified
under Commonwealth Act to become Filipino citizen of
the Philippines (sic)?

287

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 287

So vs. Republic

a Ah there has been no incident or occasion which I

learned that would disqualify of coming (sic) the citizen
of the Republic of the Philippines. I have noticed that ah
(sic) he is qualified under Commonwealth Act 473 as
amended because he is not opposed to ah (sic) organized
government. His family and himself does not believed
(sic) in the use of force in the success of his ideas and ah
(sic) he is not a poligamist (sic) or believer in the practice
of illegal and he has not been convicted in any crime
involving him in any crime (sic), and he is not suffering
from any mental alienation or any incurable contidious
(sic) disease, as provided for.
q Will you please tell us why you know all these stage?
a Because of ah (sic) the personal attachment with his
family we have continuously
54
having ah (sic) the usual
contact with his family.

It can thus be inferred that Atty. Adasa is close to

petitioner’s family, but not specifically to petitioner. Atty.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

Adasa’s statements refer to his observations on the family’s

practices and not to petitioner in particular. Nothing in his
testimony suggests that he was close to petitioner and
knew him well enough to vouch for his qualifications.
Salcedo, on the other hand, testified thus:

q Now do you know the petitioner in this case Edison So?

a Yes, Sir.
q Are you personally acquainted with him?
a Yes, Sir.
q How long have you known the petitioner?
a I have known him for about ten (10) years, Sir.
q Will you please inform the Honorable court under what
circumstances did you come to know the petitioner?
a I met him in a birthday party in 1991, Sir.

_______________

54 TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 6-12.

288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

q And from 1991 up to the present is your relationship

with the petitioner more or less contin[u]ous?
a Yes, Sir.
q How often did you see the petitioner?
a I see him twice a week, Sir.
q And during this time that you met the petitioner, what
did you usually do?
a We play some games, Sir. We play Patentero (sic).
q Do you go to church together?
a Yes, Sir.
q During fiestas in your place, did the petitioner go?
a Yes, Sir.
q How about during fiestas in the place where the
petitioner reside[s], did you also go during fiestas?
a Yes, Sir.
q During occasion in the house of the petitioner, are you

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

invited?
a Yes, Sir.
q How many time[s] did you go to his (sic) residence of the
petitioner?
a Twice a week, sir.
q Will you please tell us where the petitioner resides?
a The petitioner resides at 528 Lavezares Street, Tondo,
Manila, Sir.
q For how long does the petitioner reside in that address?
a Since birth, Sir.
q During all the times that you have known the petitioner,
will you please tell us your impression of his conduct?
a He is a person of good moral, sir, and he believed in the
principles of the Philippines (sic) Constitution.
q Will you please cite one or two of these principles
underlined the principles (sic) of the Philippines (sic)
Constitution?
a Ah the Philippines is a Republican of the (sic) state,
sovereignty preside (sic) over the people and the
government

289

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 289

So vs. Republic

  authority emanate from within; and the other one is the

civilian government is not supreme over the military.
q Now in your opinion does the petitioner have all the
qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the
Philippines?
a Yes, Sir.
q What are these qualifications?
a He is at least 21 years old, he is a person of good moral
and has been residing in the Philippines since birth.
q What else?
a He must be a Filipino and ah must practice the
traditions and customs, Sir.
q Do you know whether the petitioner conducted himself
in
a proper and appraochable (sic) manner during the period
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

of his residence in the Philippines?

a Yes, Sir.
q Do you know if the petitioner has a gainful occupation?
a Yes, Sir.
q What is the occupation of the petitioner?
a Ah (sic) he is the secretary in a wood factory in
Commonwealth, Sir.
q And aside from being the secretary, what else did the
petitioner do?
a He help (sic) in the factory cargo, Sir.
q Is the petitioner still a student?
a Yes, Sir.
q Where is he studying?
a In UST, Sir.
q Is he your classmate?
a Yes, Sir.
q What was his course?
a Pharmacy, Sir.
q So when you said he was the secretary he only works as
part time secretary?
a Yes, Sir.

290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

q You said the petitioner meddle (sic) socially with the

Filipinos?
a Yes, Sir.
q Will you please name at least one of those Filipinos the
petitioner meddle (sic) with?
a Samuel Falmera, Sir, Marlon Kahocom, Sir.
q Who else?
a Elmer Ramos, Sir.
q Who else?
a Sharmaine Santos, Sir.
q You said the petitioner is of good moral character?

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

a Yes, Sir.
q Why do you know that?
a As a classmate I can see him I go with him and ah (sic) I
can see that he has ah better approached (sic) with other
people and I can see that he mixed very well with
friends.
q So during school days you see him everyday?
a Yes, Sir.
q When there are no classes during the vacation you see
the petitioner twice a week?
a Yes, Sir.
q Does the petitioner (sic), do you think the petitioner is
not disqualified to become the citizen of the Republic of
the Philippines?
a Yes, Sir, he is not disqualified, Sir.
q Why do you say that he is not disqualified?
a Because he abide [by] any law in the government, sir, ah
(sic) he is not polygamus and he is not convicted of any
crime, Sir.
q Do you know ever the petitioner oppose to any organized
government?
a No, Sir.
q Do you know whether he believe[s] in the use of force in
any such ideas?
a No, Sir.

291

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 291

So vs. Republic

q Do you know if the petitioner is a believer in the practice

of polygamy?
a No, Sir.
q Do you know whether the petitioner suffer[s] from
mental alienation or incurable disease illnesses?
a No, Sir.
q Why do you know?
a I know him personally, sir, I have been with him as my
classmate, sir and ah (sic) he is a very intelligent person,
Sir.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

q Is the petitioner a member also of any organization or

association in your school?
a Yes, Sir.
q What organization?
a He is a member of Wishten and a member of starget, Sir.
q What does starget means?
a Starget is an organization of Chinese community in
UST, Sir.
q How about the other one which you mentioned?
a Ah (sic) these are twisting, sir 55he represents the ah the
(sic) school intercollegiate, Sir.

Again, Salcedo did not give specific details on petitioner’s

qualifications.
In sum, petitioner’s witnesses clearly did not personally
know him well enough; their testimonies do not
satisfactorily establish that petitioner has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed
by law.
In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the
applicant to prove not only his own good moral character
but also the good moral character
56
of his/her witnesses, who
must be credible persons. Within the purview of the
naturalization law, a “credible person” is not only an
individual who has not

_______________

55 Id., at pp. 16-27.

56 Republic v. Hong, supra note 53, at p. 421.

292

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So vs. Republic

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 57face
value, as a good warranty of the applicant’s worthiness.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

The records likewise do not show that the character

witnesses of petitioner are persons of good standing in the
community; that they are honest and upright, or reputed to
be trustworthy and reliable. The most that was established
was the educational attainment of the witnesses; however,
this cannot be equated with their credibility. In fine,
petitioner focused on presenting evidence tending to build
his own good moral character and neglected to establish 58
the credibility and good moral character of his witnesses.
We do not agree with petitioner’s argument that
respondent is precluded from questioning the RTC decision
because of its failure to oppose the petition. 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 upon any
material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the
cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds
or conditions
59
arising subsequent to the granting of the
certificate. If the government can challenge a final grant

_______________

57 Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, 103 Phil. 964, 971 (1958); Ong
Siao v. Republic, 145 Phil. 143, 149; 34 SCRA 195, 201 (1970); Siao Tick
Chong v. Republic, 143 Phil. 134, 139-140; 32 SCRA 253, 258 (1970).
58 Republic v. Hong, supra, at p. 422.
59 Republic v. Li Yao, G.R. No. 35947, October 20, 1992, 214 SCRA 748,
752-753.

293

VOL. 513, JANUARY 29, 2007 293

So vs. Republic

of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision

of the RTC within the reglementary period despite its
failure to oppose the petition before the lower court.
Thus, petitioner failed to show full and complete
compliance with the requirements of naturalization law.
For this reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying
the petition for naturalization without prejudice.
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 fully60
qualified
for it, and upon strict compliance with the law.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/27
9/18/21, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is

DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

          Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez and Chico-

Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—An applicant for naturalization may only take

his oath of allegiance after the Solicitor General finds that
within the period of two years from the date the decision
granting citizenship is promulgated, the applicant has
complied with the conditions set out in Section 2 of R.A.
No. 530. (Hermo vs. Dela Rosa, 299 SCRA 68 [1998])
A petition for repatriation should be filed with the
Special Committee on Naturalization and not with the
Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction thereover.
(Angat vs. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 [1999])

——o0o——

_______________

60 Id., at p. 754.

294

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf799789cf077e1bc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/27