March 1965 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > March 1965 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-20558 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: MELITON O. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20558. March 31, 1965.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. MELITON O. GO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Ramirez & Ortigas for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
After due trial, on April 4, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision finding that Meliton O. Go has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen and accordingly granted his petition for naturalization as such. No appeal having been taken from said decision, Go moved on May 29, 1962, that a day be set for the reception of evidence to show compliance by him with the requirements of R.A. No. 530. Thereupon, the Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of said petition, which, despite Go’s opposition thereto, was granted. Hence, this appeal by Go.
The order of dismissal appealed from is based upon the ground: (a) that appellant’s petition is fatally defective and void and the lower court had acquired no jurisdiction to entertain it, he having failed to alleged therein his former places of residence; and b) that the petition, likewise, fails to state that he is, admittedly, known by another name — to wit, Go King Siong — which is very different from that of Meliton Go given in the petition.
With respect to the first ground, it is alleged in appellant’s petition, dated January 26, 1959, that his address at that time was "No. 489 Romero Salas St., Ermita, Manila," and his former residence "465 Tanduay Street, Manila." However, his immigrant’s certificate of residence shows that his residence in 1948 was "250 T. Pinpin, Manila," whereas, according to his witness Cornelio San Diego, appellant had, also, lived at Narra Street, Tondo, before moving to T. Pinpin.
We have, repeatedly, held that failure to allege in the petition for naturalization the "former places of residence" of the petitioner, in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, is a fatal defect that, not only warrants dismissal of the petition 1 , but, also, affects the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the case. 2
Indeed, as stated in Lo v. Republic, L-15919, May 19, 1961:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . The reason behind such requirement (allegation of former places of residence) is obvious; said facts are required to be stated in the petition in order that, upon its publication, the public as well as the investigating agencies of our government may be given the needed opportunity to be informed thereof and voice their opinion, if any, to the petitioner’s desire to become a Filipino citizen. By omitting said facts from the petition the public and said agencies are deprived of such opportunity, thereby defeating the purpose of the law, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
As regards the second ground, appellant argues that Go King Siong is merely his nickname, not an alias. It is obvious, however, that Go King Siong is a full Chinese name, not a nickname. In fact, according to appellant’s own testimony, his clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation refers to him as "Meliton O. Go, alias Go Kim Siong also as Meliton Go" (italics ours), and, among his relatives and intimate friends he is, also known as Go Kim Siong. In any event, appellant should have alleged in his petition this fact and his failure to do so affected the proceedings leading to the decision in his favor, which was later revoked or set aside impliedly by the order appealed from. 3
It is urged, that having become final, no appeal having been taken therefrom, said decision is beyond the lower court’s power of revocation. It should be noted, however, that the irregularities or defects relied upon in the order appealed from are such as to affect the jurisdiction of said court, and, hence, the validity of said decision. Moreover, the Revised Naturalization Law (Section 18) authorizes the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization obtained fraudulently or illegally. Since, in view of the aforementioned irregularities or defects in appellant’s petition it results that the original decision in his favor had been secured illegally, it is obvious that the lower court was fully justified in dismissing the petition — and thus impliedly revoking said decision — instead of ordering the issuance of the corresponding certificate of naturalization, to be cancelled immediately thereafter, upon said ground of illegality. 4
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon and Regala, JJ., took no part.
The order of dismissal appealed from is based upon the ground: (a) that appellant’s petition is fatally defective and void and the lower court had acquired no jurisdiction to entertain it, he having failed to alleged therein his former places of residence; and b) that the petition, likewise, fails to state that he is, admittedly, known by another name — to wit, Go King Siong — which is very different from that of Meliton Go given in the petition.
With respect to the first ground, it is alleged in appellant’s petition, dated January 26, 1959, that his address at that time was "No. 489 Romero Salas St., Ermita, Manila," and his former residence "465 Tanduay Street, Manila." However, his immigrant’s certificate of residence shows that his residence in 1948 was "250 T. Pinpin, Manila," whereas, according to his witness Cornelio San Diego, appellant had, also, lived at Narra Street, Tondo, before moving to T. Pinpin.
We have, repeatedly, held that failure to allege in the petition for naturalization the "former places of residence" of the petitioner, in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, is a fatal defect that, not only warrants dismissal of the petition 1 , but, also, affects the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the case. 2
Indeed, as stated in Lo v. Republic, L-15919, May 19, 1961:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . The reason behind such requirement (allegation of former places of residence) is obvious; said facts are required to be stated in the petition in order that, upon its publication, the public as well as the investigating agencies of our government may be given the needed opportunity to be informed thereof and voice their opinion, if any, to the petitioner’s desire to become a Filipino citizen. By omitting said facts from the petition the public and said agencies are deprived of such opportunity, thereby defeating the purpose of the law, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
As regards the second ground, appellant argues that Go King Siong is merely his nickname, not an alias. It is obvious, however, that Go King Siong is a full Chinese name, not a nickname. In fact, according to appellant’s own testimony, his clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation refers to him as "Meliton O. Go, alias Go Kim Siong also as Meliton Go" (italics ours), and, among his relatives and intimate friends he is, also known as Go Kim Siong. In any event, appellant should have alleged in his petition this fact and his failure to do so affected the proceedings leading to the decision in his favor, which was later revoked or set aside impliedly by the order appealed from. 3
It is urged, that having become final, no appeal having been taken therefrom, said decision is beyond the lower court’s power of revocation. It should be noted, however, that the irregularities or defects relied upon in the order appealed from are such as to affect the jurisdiction of said court, and, hence, the validity of said decision. Moreover, the Revised Naturalization Law (Section 18) authorizes the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization obtained fraudulently or illegally. Since, in view of the aforementioned irregularities or defects in appellant’s petition it results that the original decision in his favor had been secured illegally, it is obvious that the lower court was fully justified in dismissing the petition — and thus impliedly revoking said decision — instead of ordering the issuance of the corresponding certificate of naturalization, to be cancelled immediately thereafter, upon said ground of illegality. 4
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon and Regala, JJ., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Cu v. Republic, L-1038, July 18, 1951; Pidelo v. Republic, L-7796, September 29, 1955; Lo v. Republic, L-15919, May 19, 1961; Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961; Co v. Republic, L-15794, December 29, 1962; Ngo v. Republic, L-18319, May 31, 1963; Serwani v. Republic, L-18219, December 27,1963; Dy Pek Long v. Republic, L-18758, May 30, 1964.
2. Tan Cona v. Republic, L-13224, April 24, 160; Ng Bui Rui v. Republic, L-11172, December 22, 1958; Ong Son Cui v. Republic L-9859, May 27, 1957.
3. Yu Seco v. Republic, 57 Off. Gaz., 9024; Co v. Republic, 53 Off. Gaz., 9225; Kiang v. Republic, L-8378, March 23, 1956.
4. Republic v. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961; Ong Ching Guan v. Republic L-15691, March 27, 1961; Lim Hok Albano v. Republic, 104 Phil. 795. See, also, U.S. v. Mulvey N.Y. 1916, 232 F. 513, 146 C.C.A. 471; Grahl v. U.S. C.C.A. Wis 1919, 261 F. 487, affirming U.S. vs Kamn, D.C. 1918, 247 F. 968; U.S. v. Koopmans, D.C.N.Y. 1923, 290 F. 545; US v. Khan, DC Pa. 1924, 1 F. 2d 1006; U.S. v. Napulos D.C. Iowa, 1915, 225 F. 636.
