Naturalization, In General:

 Legal Basis:
o C.A. 473. Judicial Naturalization
o R.A. 530. Additional Provisions for Judicial Naturalization.
o C.A. 63.
o R.A. 9139. Administrative Naturalization
 Naturalization, in General:
o Is the process of acquiring citizenship to an alien.
o The right of an alien to become a citizen by naturalization is statutory, rather than a
natural one, and it does not become vested until he establishes facts showing strict
compliance with the law (Mohamed v. Republic 2021).
Substantive Law:
 1. Judicial Naturalization (C.A. 473):
o Qualifications and Disqualifications per C.A. 473:
 Qualifications (Section 2):
 1. Must be at least 21 years old at hearing of petition.
 2. Continuously resided in PH for more than 10 years.
 3. Is a person of Good Moral Character.
 4. Believes in the principles of the constitution
 5. Conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable (faultless) manner
during his stay in the Philippines.
 6. Owns real estate OR has a lucrative trade/profession/lawful occupation.
 7. Able to read and write Filipino/English/Spanish/Any principal language
 8. Enrolled his minor children in Filipino schools recognized by DEPED
where PH history, government, and civics are taught.
 Special Qualifications (Section 3):
 Special qualifications are circumstances that reduces the 10 years stay to 5
years for naturalization:
o 1. Government employment/office.
o 2. Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention.
o 3. Married to a Filipina wife.
o 4. Teacher in a Filipino school for at least 2 years.
o 5. Born in the Philippines
 Disqualifications (Section 4):
 1. Persons opposed to organized government, or membership to an
organization that is opposed to organized government (anarchists).
 2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence
(violent people).
 3. Polygamists.
 4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.
 5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases.
 6. Persons who have not mingled socially with the Filipinos.
 7. Person who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipino.
 8. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the
Philippines are at war, during the period of such war.
 9. 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.
 2. Administrative Naturalization:
 3. Derivative Naturalization:
o Effect on spouse and children per C.A. 473:
 1. Effect on spouse:
 a. If naturalized spouse PH male, and alien spouse is female:
o “Sec. 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. - Any
woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the
Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be
deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”
 b. If naturalized spouse is PH female, and alien spouse is male (Section 15):
o <not provided by law, need more research>.
  2. Effect on children:
 “Sec. 15…Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have
been born in-the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof.

A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the

naturalization of the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen,
and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the Philippines at the time the
parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his
minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still
a minor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after
becoming of age.

A child born outside of the Philippines after, the naturalization of his parent,
shall be considered a Philippine citizen, unless within one year after reaching
the age of majority, he. fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the
American Consulate of the country where he resides, and to take the
necessary oath of allegiance.”
Procedure:
 Judicial Naturalization:
o Summary of procedure for judicial naturalization:
o C.A. 473:
 1. 1 year Declaration of Intent with OSG prior to petition in court (Section 5):
 “Sec. 5. Declaration of intention. - One year prior to the filing of his petition
for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine
citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice a declaration under oath that
is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. Such
declaration shall set forth the name, age, occupation, personal description,
place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the
name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines,
and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the
declaration. No declaration-shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent
residence has been established and a certificate showing the date, place, and
manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant must also state that he
has enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private
schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines,
where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as
part of "the school curriculum, during "the entire period of the residence in
the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish two
photographs of himself.”
 The Declaration of Intention, broken down:
o 1. Mut be filed 1 year prior to petition, with the OSG.
o 2. Must be with Certificate of Arrival.
o 3. It has to be established that entry for permanent residence is
lawful.
 2. The petition;
 “Sec. 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
anyway disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also
set forth the names and post-office 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.”
 Matters to be included in the Petition:
o 1. Petition must be in triplicate.
o 2. With 2 photographs of the petitioner.
o 3. Petition must set forth the following details:
 a. Name and surname.
 b. Present and former place of residence.
 c. Occupation
 d. Birth place and date
 e. Residence of spouse and children
 f. Approximate date of arrival in the PH.
 g. A declaration that he has all the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications.
 h. A declaration that he has complied with the declaration of
intention requirement.
 i. A declaration that he will reside continuously in the PH from
the date of filing of the petition until his PH citizenship.
o 4. Personally signed by the applicant.
o 5. Supported by affidavits of at least 2 witnesses that are:
 a. Credible persons.
 b. PH citizens.
 c. 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
anyway disqualified under the provisions of this Act.
o 6. The petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses
of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the
hearing of the case
o 7. Must be accompanied by the following documents:
 a. Certificate of arrival.
 This is the ACR/SRRV.
 b. Declaration of Intention.
 3. Jurisdiction is RTC; Venue of the petition is the residence of the petitioner for 1
year prior to the petition:
 “SEC. 8. Competent court. - The Court of First Instance of the province in
which the petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the
filing of the petition shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the
petition.”
 4. Publication for 3 consecutive weeks:
 “Sec. 9. Notification and appearance. - Immediately upon the filing of a
petition, it shall be the duty of-the clerk of the court to publish the same at
petitioner's 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 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 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, the Bureau of Justice, the provincial Inspector of
the Philippine Constabulary of the province and die justice of the peace of
the municipality wherein the petitioner resides.”
 The publication and notice requirement:
o 1. Clerk of court has the duty to publish
o 2. At the petitioner’s expense.
o 3. Once a week, for 3 consecutive weeks in the OG AND in 1 of the
newspapers of general circulation in the city/province where
petitioner resides.
o 4. Also has to be posted in a public and conspicuous place in
petitioner’s office.
 5. Hearing and Judgement:
 “Sec. 10. Hearing of the petition. - No petition shall be heard within the
thirty clays preceding any election. The hearing-shall-be public, and the
Solicitor-General, either himself or through his delegate or the provincial
fiscal concerned, shall appear on behalf of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines at all the proceedings and at the bearing. If, after the hearing,
the court believes, in view of the evidence taken, that the petitioner has all
the qualifications required by, and none of the disqualifications specified in
this Act and has complied with all requisites herein established, it shall order
the proper naturalization certificate to be issued and the registration of the
said naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry as required in
section ten of Act Numbered Three thousand seven hundred and fifty-three.”
 2 options after hearing:
o If petition is meritorious, Court will issue a Certificate of
Naturalization.
o If petition is unmeritorious, Court will dismiss, which can be appealed.
 6. Appeal:
 “Sec. 11. Appeal. - The final sentence may, at instance of either of the
parties, be appealed tn the Supreme Court.”
 7. The Certificate of Naturalization:
 “Sec. 12. Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization. -If, after the lapse of
thirty days from and after the date on which the parties were notified of the
decision of the Court, no appeal has been filed, or-if, upon appeal, the
decision of the court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the said
decision has become-final, the clerk of the court which heard the petition
shall issue to the petitioner a naturalization certificate which shall, among
other things, state the following: The file number of the petition, the member
of the naturalization certificate, the signature of the person naturalized
affixed.in the presence of the clerk of the court, the personal circumstances
of the person naturalized, the dates on which his declaration of intention and
petition were filed, the date of the decision granting the petition, and the
name of the judge who rendered the decision. A photograph of the petitioner
with die dry seal affixed thereto of the court which granted the petition, must
be affixed to the certificate.”

Before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall, in open

court, take the following oath:

“I,_____________________________________., solemnly swear that I renounce

absolutely and forever all allegiance and-fidelity to any foreign prince,
potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to die______________________
of which at this time I am a subject or. citizen; that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the Philippines and that I will obey the laws, legal orders
and decrees promulgated by die duly constituted authorities of die
Commonwealth of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the United States of america in-the
Philippines and will maintain true-faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion.
 So help me God.”"
o R.A. No. 530
 2-year stay within the Philippines (R.A. No. 530):
 “SECTION 1. The provisions of existing laws notwithstanding, no petition for
Philippine citizenship shall be heard by the courts until after six months from
the publication of the application required by law, nor shall any decision
granting the application become executory until after two years from its
promulgation and after the court, on proper hearing, with the attendance of
the Solicitor General on his representative, is satisfied, and so finds, that
during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines,
(2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or
profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of
Government promulgated rules, (4) or committed any act prejudicial
to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government
announced policies.”
Jurisprudence:
 On the nature of Naturalization:
o So v Republic:
 Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political
body of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.
 A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision
rendered therein does not constitute res judicata.
 On Declaration of Intention:
o Mohamed v. Republic 2021:
 The right of an alien to become a citizen by naturalization is statutory, rather than a
natural one, and it does not become vested until he establishes facts showing
strict compliance with the law.
 I. WON the one-year period to file the application for naturalization must be
reckoned from the filing of the original Declaration of Intention, and not after the
submission of the Supplemental Declaration of Intention [because if based on
original, his petition is not premature. Otherwise, it is premature].
 1. NO. His petition is premature. The declaration of intention must be filed one year
prior to the filing of the petition for naturalization. In this case, the one-year
period must be computed from Mohamed's filing of his supplemental
declaration of intention because he introduced substantial change in the
original declaration.
 2. The filing of such declaration of intention, upon faithful compliance with the
statutory requirements, is mandatory and an absolute prerequisite to naturalization.
Hence, the premature filing of the petition for naturalization before the expiration of
the one-year period is fatal.
 3. Section 5 of C.A. No. 473 strictly enjoins the applicant to file with the OSG a
declaration under oath that it is his or her bona fide intention to become a citizen of
the Philippines one year prior to the filing of the petition for admission to Philippine
citizenship.
 4. Republic v. Li Ching Chung discussed the purpose of the one-year period is to
give the OSG sufficient time to investigate the qualifications of the applicant and
adduce evidence to protect the interest of the State.
 5. Here, among the contents of Mohamed's Declaration of Intention are the names
for which he is known for. However, Mohamed's original declaration provided the
name "Abdelkahim Mohamed," and it was only in the supplemental declaration that
the name "Abdelhakim Mohamed Hussin" was incorporated. Contrary to Mohamed's
theory, the change he introduced in the declaration as to the names he was known
for is substantial.
 6. Obviously, the period of one month is insufficient for the OSG to verify the person
of the applicant "Abdelkahim Mohamed" a.k.a. "Abdelhakim Mohamed Hussin" and
to conduct inquiries as to his qualifications.
 On Qualifications:
o “Lucrative trade, profession, lawful occupation”
 It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is
an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for
 an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work
and thus avoid ones becoming the object of charity or a public charge. (In re:
naturalization of Mahtani).
o “morally irreproachable”
 In the matter of the petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines. Lim Eng
Yu (income tax returns):
 The answer to the foregoing query is not hard to find. Had petitioner stated
in his income tax returns the net incomes he now claims he would have been
required to pay income taxes, it appearing that the same exceed his
exemption under the law. Hence, he had to conceal the same to evade paying
lawful taxes. But presently confronted that the net incomes appearing in his
income tax returns could not qualify him for Philippine citizenship, petitioner
resorted to make his eleventh hour explanation. Such conduct of petitioner
shows that his moral character is not irreproachable, or as good as it should
be, which disqualifies him for naturalization.
 On the witnesses:
o Relevant Provision:
 “Supported by affidavits of at least 2 witnesses that are:
a. Credible persons.
b. PH citizens.
c. 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 anyway disqualified.”
o In re: Petition of Mohamed:
 Witnesses are credible at par with the requirements of naturalization laws when
they have a good standing in the community; that they are known to be honest and
upright; that they are reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that their word
may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the
applicant.
 The character witnesses should possess such intimate knowledge of the applicant as
to be competent to testify of their personal knowledge. This is because vouching
witnesses stand as insurers of the applicant's conduct and character.
 There is nothing in the record to establish that Mohamed's witnesses have a high
degree of reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
 Testify on specific facts and events justifying the inference that the applicant, as
personally known to them.
 The affidavits of Edna and Mary Joy contained general statements without
specifying the instances showing that Mohamed would be a good citizen of the
Philippines.
 [t]he belief expressed by the witnesses that the petitioner would make a good
citizen, and that they recommend his admission to Filipino citizenship, is a
mere conclusion unsupported by facts, and, therefore, an opinion entitled to
no weight.
 Mary Joy is Mohamed's household helper and the economic factor in their
relationship creates doubt on her impartiality.
 Mohamed likewise failed to substantiate the absence of disqualification regarding
his mental and physical condition. Mohamed did not submit documentary evidence
or medical certificate to prove that he is not suffering from any mental alienation or
incurable disease. The witnesses are likewise silent on this matter.
 DENIED.
o So v Republic:
 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 possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided
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 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 making it. This implies that such person must
have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright;
that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on
its face value, as a good warranty of the applicant's worthiness.
 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.
 A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision
rendered therein does not constitute res judicata.
o In the matter of the petition of ROBERT CU:
 In naturalization petitions, the Courts are peculiarly at the mercy of the witnesses
offered by the candidate. Such candidate takes care to see that only those who are
friendly to him, are offered as witnesses. The Courts cannot be expected to possess
acquaintance with the candidates with the presenting themselves for naturalization
— in fact, no duty rests upon them in this particular; so that witnesses appearing
before them are in a way insures of the character of the candidate concerned, and
on their testimony the courts are of necessity compelled to rely. A witness who
compelled to rely. A witness who is incompetent renders an application void.
 The question of a witness' qualifications in naturalization proceedings is therefore a
matter of more than usual importance.
o In re: Leonidas Tan:
 These witnesses cannot be considered qualified to become "insurers" of his good
moral character while in Manila, where he has stayed for the last three years
immediately preceding the filing of the petition. And, since the law requires proof of
proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of the alien's residence
in the Philippines, 6 the evidence herein presented falls short of the requirement of
the law.
o Republic v Reyes, 1965:
 While the character witnesses presented by the applicant — a lawyer and an
accountant — may be reliable, responsible individuals, yet, considering that the
applicant invoked his alleged residence for more than 30 years, in order to qualify
as "insurers of the latter's conduct and behavior," it is necessary that said witnesses
must have known him for the same number of years. Since, admittedly, these
witnesses came to know the applicant only in 1947, they cannot be considered as
"credible witnesses" within the contemplation of the Revised Naturalization Law.
o Yi v Republic:
 The attesting witnesses of petitioner herein do not appear to belong to this
category. One of them, Leticia C. Alvarez, is a teacher in the Zamboanga Chinese
School, in which he had been her pupil for two (2) years in the elementary
department. The other, Catalino C. Pantaleon, is shop superintendent of the Bureau
of Public Highways, Zamboanga City. Without, in the least, underrating the
profession or occupation of each, the fact is that there is absolutely nothing in the
record to indicate, even if remotely, that any of them has the status contemplated in
the Naturalization Act. This is not to cast any doubt upon the moral fabric of said
witnesses. It simply indicates that their honesty and integrity-even if the same were
assumed to be a fact- are insufficient to place them within the class envisaged by
law. It is, also, necessary that each one possesses such a high degree of reputation
in the community for honesty and integrity that "his word may be taken on its face
value as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner."
 In the case at bar, respondent did not present testimonial or documentary evidence
to prove that his witnesses are "credible persons" as defined under the
Naturalization Law. The Court does not intend to cast any aspersion upon the
character of these witnesses. This simply means that the respondent 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.
 The trial court must have some basis upon which it can determine that the
witnesses are indeed credible persons.
o Go v Republic, 2014:
 While there is no showing that petitioner’s 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 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 petitioner’s 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 applicant’s 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.
o In Re: Ong:
 Within the purview of the Naturalization Law, 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. Thus, in Cu v.
Republic, we declared that said affiants "are in a way insurers of the character of
the candidate concerned." Indeed, by their affidavits, they do not merely make the
statements therein contained. They also vouch for the applicant, attest to the merits
of his petition and sort of underwrite the same.
 Relampagos is his subordinate and was not free, either economically or morally, to
act as he pleased in relation to the case at bar.
 The character witnesses are required to attest that "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 law. Alvez expressed the belief that petitioner "has
none of the disqualifications of becoming a Filipino citizen", but he did not give the
facts upon which this conclusion was predicated. He did not know where petitioner
was born or how many children he had. He (Alvez) was not sure whether they are
enrolled in public schools. Neither was he sure about the name of his (petitioner’s)
wife. In short, it would seem that he is not sufficiently acquainted with the petitioner
to be in a position to vouch for him and be his "insurer.".

FAQs:
 Q: What is an ACR?
o An Alien Certificate of Registration is a card required for alien staying in the Philippines for
more than 59 days.
 Q: What are the requirements for Declaration of Intention:
 Q: What is Special Resident Retiree’s Visa?
 Q: Who publishes, us or client? What newspaper to look for?
 Q: What is affidavit of publication? (proof of publication)?

Notes from hearings:

 Witness hearing 1.14.25:
o Witness for petitioner testified. Prosecutor did not cross. Judge asked questions about GMC
of petitioner, and also of the witness himself. Judge questions seem to attack the credibility
of the witness, and his knowledge of the petitioner.
 Witness hearing 1.21.25 (Ms. Yuri for Shi Bizhen):
 o More hostile OSG and judge. Questioned the specifics of the dynamics inside the house as
to how witness knows and talks to petitioner. Witness was a housekeeper, and she claims
to have known petitioner for 10 years. Judge and OSG questioned the times when she
would interact with the petitioner and what they talk about. Didn’t go well.
 Witness hearing 2.12.25:
o Judge and fiscal constantly attacks the credibility of the witness to testify for the petitioner.

Running checklist on presenting witnesses:

 1. Show that they are credible witnesses:
o Witnesses are credible at par with the requirements of naturalization laws when they have
a good standing in the community; that they are known to be honest and upright.
o 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…[but must be positively shown to be
honest and with integrity].
o The trial court must have some basis upon which it can determine that the witnesses are
indeed credible persons.
 2. Show that the witness is a person of good moral character.
o 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.
 3. Show that they have intimate knowledge of the applicant:
o Ratio: vouching witnesses stand as insurers of the applicant's conduct and character.
o In order to qualify as "insurers of the latter's conduct and behavior," it is necessary that
said witnesses must have known him for the same number of years [which is the period of
the whole stay of petitioner in the Philippines].
o They must have personal knowledge of the petitioner's conduct during the entire period of
his residence in the Philippines (Republic v Go Pei Hung).
 4. Show that the applicant has all the qualifications, and none of the disqualifications.
o Witnesses are expected to testify on specific facts and events justifying the inference that
applicant – as personally known to them – possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law for purposes of naturalization.
o The character witnesses are required to attest that "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 law.
 This should be demonstrated by the witness testifying on specific facts/events on
every point of qualification and disqualification.
 + Witnesses must not be economically or morally influenced by the petitioner.

Running checklist on Qualifications and Disqualifications that must be shown:

 Qualifications:
o 1. Must be at least 21 years old at hearing of petition.
o 2. Continuously resided in PH for more than 10 years.
o 3. Is a person of Good Moral Character:
 Internally is a good person.
o 4. Believes in the principles of the constitution:
 Not only knows, but also believes in it.
o 5. Conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his stay in the
Philippines:
 Good conduct in front of other people; good reputation.
o 6. Owns real estate OR has a lucrative trade/profession/lawful occupation:
o 7. Able to read and write Filipino/English/Spanish/Any principal language:
o 8. Enrolled his minor children in Filipino schools recognized by DEPED where PH history,
government, and civics are taught.
 Disqualifications:
o 1. Persons opposed to organized government, or membership to an organization that is
opposed to organized government (anarchists).
o 2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence (violent people).
o 3. Polygamists.
o 4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.
o 5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases.
o 6. Persons who have not mingled socially with the Filipinos.
o 7. Person who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions, and ideals of the Filipino.
o 8. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the Philippines are at
war, during the period of such war.
o 9. 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.