Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 159 views

    Go vs. Republic GR 202809

    Uploaded by

    Jon Joshua Falcone
    This case involves Dennis L. Go's petition for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Go did not adequately prove that his character witnesses were credible or qualified under the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that Go did not establish the qualifications of his witnesses or comply with other jurisdictional requirements, such as stating his former residence. The petition for naturalization was dismissed without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Go vs. Republic GR 202809

    Uploaded by

    Jon Joshua Falcone
    159 views2 pages
    This case involves Dennis L. Go's petition for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Go did not adequately prove that his character witnesses were credible or qualified under the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that Go did not establish the qualifications of his witnesses or comply with other jurisdictional requirements, such as stating his former residence. The petition for naturalization was dismissed without prejudice.

    Original Description:

    Go v. Republic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Dennis L. Go's petition for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Go did not adequately prove that his character witnesses were credible or qualified under the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that Go did not establish the qualifications of his witnesses or comply with other jurisdictional requirements, such as stating his former residence. The petition for naturalization was dismissed without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    159 views2 pages

    Go vs. Republic GR 202809

    Uploaded by

    Jon Joshua Falcone
    This case involves Dennis L. Go's petition for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Go did not adequately prove that his character witnesses were credible or qualified under the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that Go did not establish the qualifications of his witnesses or comply with other jurisdictional requirements, such as stating his former residence. The petition for naturalization was dismissed without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Dennis L. Go vs.

    Republic of the Philippines

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

    FACTS

    Petitioner filed a petition for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, the Revised
    Naturalization Law. Aside from his presentation of all other requirements, petitioner presented, as
    witnesses, Dr. Anlacan, Dr. Tordesillas, Silivino Ong, Teresita Go, and Juan Go.

    Dr. Anlacan testified that based on the psychiatric examination he conducted on petitioner, he
    had no psychiatric abnormality at the time of the test. Dr. Tordesillas, on the other hand, reported that
    petitioner's medical examination results were normal. Ong, a friend of petitioner's family, said that he
    had known petitioner since childhood through his association with the family in times of celebration.
    Teresita described him as a peace-loving person who participated in activities sponsored by his school
    and the barangay. Lastly, Juan, a businessman by profession, also claimed that he knew petitioner
    personally.

    The RTC rendered a discussion granting the petition for naturalization ruling that the petitioner
    possessed the qualification set forth by law. But the CA reversed and set aside said decision. Hence, this
    petition.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Go's petition for naturalization should be granted.

    RULING

    No. Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization, the application must show substantial
    and formal compliance with C.A. No. 473. In other words, an applicant must comply with the
    jurisdictional requirements, establish his or her possession of the qualifications and none of the
    disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at least two character witnesses to support his
    allegations.

    In Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, the Court listed the requirements for character witnesses,
    namely:

    1. That they are citizens of the Philippines


    2. That they are credible persons
    3. That they personally know the petitioner
    4. That they personally know him to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required
    by law
    5. That they personally know him to be a person of good repute
    6. That they personally know him to be morally irreproachable
    7. That he has, in their opinion, all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the
    Philippines, and
    8. That he "is not in any way disqualified under the provisions" of the Naturalization Law.
    The records of the case show that the joint affidavits executed by petitioner's witnesses did not establish
    their own qualification to stand as such in a naturalization proceeding. In turn, petitioner did not present
    evidence proving that the persons he presented were credible. In other words of the CA, "he did not
    prove that his witnesses had good standing in the community, known to be honest and upright, reputed
    to be trustworthy and reliable, and that their word may be taken at face value, as a good warranty of the
    worthiness of the petitioner".

    Furthermore, the background checks done on petitioner yielded negative results due to the
    uncooperative behavior of the members of this household. In fact, petitioner himself disobliged when
    asked for an interview by BOI agents. To the court, this is a display of insincerity to embrace Filipino
    customs, traditions and ideals.

    Finally, it is noteworthy that petitioner's failure to state his former residence in the petition was
    fatal to his application or naturalization. Indeed, this omission had deprived the trial court of jurisdiction
    to hear and decide the case.

    Hence, the petition for naturalization is dismissed without prejudice.

    You might also like