AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS I, MS. ANGELIE BRIGIT M. TAN, of legal age, Filipino, and residing at Blk. 4, Lot 4, St. Paul Ave., Lopez Subd., Parañaque City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state: 1. That I am citizen of the Philippines, and I have personally known and has been acquainted in the Philippines with Mr. George Go Cheng, the applicant for admission for Philippine Citizenship since 1967 by reason of our being classmates in Elementary and High School at Quiapo Community High School (now Philippine Scholastic Academy) at No. 1050 Castillejos St., Quiapo, Manila; personal knowledge that Mr. George Go Cheng has been born in the Philippines and resided therein continuously preceding the date of filing his petition for naturalization; 4. That likewise of my personal knowledge that Mr. George Go Cheng is and during all such has been a person of good repute, and morally irreproachable, attached to the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the Philippines, mingled socially with Filipinos with sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people; 5. That to my sincere belief and opinion, Mr. George Go Cheng has all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under any law (particularly Rep. Act 9139), since he is not opposed to organized government of the Philippines and personal assault, assassination; he does support any teachings of violence, 6. That attest to the truth of all the foregoing statements. (Sgd.) ANGELIE BRIGIT M. TAN SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 28th day of September, 2012 in the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her government issued I.D. No. TIN 189-052886-000 issued at Manila on 07-27-98 (Sgd.) JOSELITO C. FRIAL Notary Public Roll of Attorneys No. 38967 2. My continuing familiarity of Mr. George Go Cheng is by reason of our acquaintance as being neighbors in Quiapo, Manila, where I lived at Arlequi St., (Gunao cor. Globo de Oro, Quiapo), and his family business at Raon St., cor. Quezon Blvd., Quiapo, Manila, where he works as we celebrate together the feast of Black Nazarene (Fiesta ng Quiapo), the traditional Christmas and New Year Eve, among other Philippine Doc. No. 34 holidays; 3. That this my first time to act as character witness for naturalization, and has 1091 N. Lopez St., Ermita, Manila Book No. 7 Series of 2012. The petitioner after baring cohabited with the respondent for a long time without the benefit of Burciage ves able to ecovince has then live-in-partner to legalies their relationship and on May 13, 1999 they were murtled before lev. Mario J. Deus, Sz. at the Handle City Bal) ("A"). As a logical consequeSSE, the four (4) shildren were born out of wedlock, nezely, Mary Joy Cheng, born on karch 15, 1999 (Exhibit "2"); Mary Chaga Tine Cheng, born on April 10, 1990 (Exhibit "C"); Fichael Angelo Chers. born on December 19, 1991 Chhibit "9");tend Mary Faye Chens, born on fovember 23, 1995 (hibit "E"). After the usmriage of the petitioner with the respondent they executed a Deed of Legitimatics and filed with the City Civil Registry of Menils and the corresponding certifications vere inspeds on Februmy 4, 1998 with respect to Mary Jay Cheng (hibit ""); January 30, 1998 with respect to May Christyne Cheng (Edhibit ""); January 30, 1992 with respect to Michael Angelo Cheng (Exhibit ), on Petrums 1993 with respect to lury Faye Cheng (Exhibit "I"). The cause of action of the petitioner is focused on the respondent's paychological incapacity which he described as meni Pretations of immaturity as follows: 25 After a hidef courtship sad while they barely knew each other, the respondent started to go out with him on dates in sotels on my convenient places for their intimate relationship resulting to her untiraty pregnancy; that the respondent when anfred by petitioner to enter into nertiago, adminished the latter, that she would only continue going out with hie of even be his live-in-partner for as long as there is no azendige between then; that in the course of their cohabitation without the benefit of azeriage but for all perpazos las petitioner considered here Brandy as his vife, the rasponsthat acted to hin es en unattached vosen as the pontimed her carefree life styly by oftenly going eut with her male and ferale friends socializing ith them such co in dires puta, in parties to the point of leaving bes Mys.iz-partner sad children in state of anxiety and loneliness; that even after their rozwinge, she still was selfish, hartbeaded sal bet-tempored and domineering. She does not listen to the opinion of the petitioner in sunning the family affair, the does not warpect the decision af petitioner and insists on how One way thus diminishing completely the role of the petitioner ar heed of the family. Lasso, she failed to attend to the bande needs of the petitions and their children. Evan after the irgs, the respondent continued with her marital infidelity. One time in the eanly 1997 after the respondent came home at night, she apposed to be exhausted, strengaly and unusually cocina to the petitioner, without any wraponse to Une letter'a semuel advances, and after having beca confronted of her babevice, nie flatly the petitioner that she does not love the petitioner cryabre and she io in love with another man. That after a short secret inquizy from their bousoundd, the petitions vee inferred by thei- unid that a contain man armed 2001 was often fetching the respondent whenever the petitioner in at work. That fically, in the middle of the year 1997 after a serious quarrel, the respondent demended upon Min magpondent to reparate each other and do thatever they went without interference fŕbd/esch other. She petitioner just kept his cool and left pof his wit. On that nase day the petitioner var fald by their aid that the respondent after packing by her things une fetched by her lover from the conjugal abade and they sprû any. Since that incident the parties Save been separated in-foes as d respondent is now living at ter rented epanterat in Sampaloc, fiendia where she suf han liveCompenters are conducting their business. The petition is imposed with awit. -4 When a zan atd a vosan enter into a contract of marriago, they should have in mind the vulus of their union in the some by Souta give Laportance thereto. Thus "Harriago is a special contract of permanent union batusen a lan and a woman entered into in Locardice of the law for the establishment of a conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the fully and un inviolable social institution whose patie, consequenzae end incidents are governed by the law did not subject to stipulation, except that maziauge settlementu nay fix the property zolacions during the carriage wildn the limite provided by this Gode." ( Article 1 ly Code of the 14ilippines). Loing the foundation of the family, the husband and vife are called upon to nourish their relationship and ecaply faithrully with their duties and obligations to each other which ENG JELASP.ted in sticle 69 of the same Code in the folloving curar: #the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe cutual love, respect und ridelity, and render sutul help and support." In pinging into the married state, the parties threw quution to the vid ng thay need to be unaware of the conse gaeness wal wafatain the wuruth of their love for one anothar. although the acts of the responent are the proximate cause of their marital indeference, the case was already existing even prior to the marriage. After the carriages the husband an head of the family should enforce his discipline to his wife, not in sense of punishing her but at least to persuado her from her carefree life style when une vas still on unwed partner. And this restriction aboull be posed immediately when a man and wosan agree to live together as husband and adre, utual love, suspect and filelity should be readily |