February 1966 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > February 1966 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-20152 February 28, 1966 IN RE: LEONCIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20152. February 28, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEONCIO DY alias LEE HAN TOO TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEONCIO DY alias LEE HAN TOO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
H. S. Estrada for the petitioner and appellee.
Solicitor General for petitioner and appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; FAILURE TO SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ALL PLACES OF RESIDENCE. — The requirement of Sec. 7 of the Revised Naturalization Act that the petitioner for naturalization must set forth in his petition his present and former places of residence is mandatory and non-compliance therewith is fatal to the application. Such omission affects the jurisdiction of the court taking cognizance of the case.
2. ID.; USE OF ALIAS WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. — Petitioner’s act of using an alias name without first obtaining judicial authority therefor, is a violation of the Anti-Alias Law. Consequently, he cannot be considered as having conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his period of residence in the Philippines.
2. ID.; USE OF ALIAS WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. — Petitioner’s act of using an alias name without first obtaining judicial authority therefor, is a violation of the Anti-Alias Law. Consequently, he cannot be considered as having conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his period of residence in the Philippines.
D E C I S I O N
BARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal by the Republic from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Dagupan City Branch, Civil Case No. D-1116) wherein the trial court, after concluding that the evidence established to its satisfaction that petitioner-appellee Leoncio Dy, alias Lee Han Too possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to be naturalized, allowed the latter to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines.
The Solicitor General in his brief for the Republic contends, among others, that (1) the petitioner failed to state in his published petition all of his former places of residence as required by the Revised Naturalization Law; (2) that petitioner has used and is using an alias name without judicial authority; and (3) petitioner does not have good moral character and has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.
Anyone of these contentions if true, would justify the denial of the present petition for naturalization.
With respect to point number one, the records clearly disclose that petitioner was born in the City of Manila on January 22, 1928. On his admission, he stayed in Manila from his birth up to 1944 where he has continuously studied (t.s.n., pp. 3 & 4). In his Alien Certificate of Registration (exh. c) dated November 28, 1950, he gave as his place of residence and address 825 San Nicolas, Manila. Likewise, in his Immigrant Certificate of Residence dated February 23, 1956 (exh. d) his address appears to be at 425 San Nicolas, Manila. In his residence certificate for the year 1961 (Exh. j-1) his place of residence is given as 425 San Nicolas, Manila. And yet in his petition for naturalization he states in the 2nd paragraph thereof the following "my present place of residence is Moonlight Soap Factory, Dagupan City and my former residence is Calasiao, Pangasinan up to 1953." In a number of cases this Court has held that the requirement of Sec. 7 of the Revised Naturalization Act that the petitioner for naturalization must set forth in his petition his present and former places of residence is mandatory and non-compliance therewith is fatal to the application and that such omission affects the jurisdiction of the court taking cognizance of the case. 1 The reason for this is obvious because non-compliance with this mandatory requirement deprives the government and the general public of the opportunity to check up petitioner’s character or activities for the purpose of determining the fitness of the petitioner to merit the high privilege of becoming a citizen of the Republic.
Additionally, the admitted fact that petitioner has been using an alias (Lee Han Too) for which he obtained no judicial authority is a violation of the Anti-Alias Law (C. C. 142). Consequently, petitioner can not be considered as having conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his period of residence in the Philippines.
Having come to this conclusion, the Court finds no need for discussing the other points raised in the Government’s brief.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the application for naturalization of petitioner is denied, with costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
The Solicitor General in his brief for the Republic contends, among others, that (1) the petitioner failed to state in his published petition all of his former places of residence as required by the Revised Naturalization Law; (2) that petitioner has used and is using an alias name without judicial authority; and (3) petitioner does not have good moral character and has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.
Anyone of these contentions if true, would justify the denial of the present petition for naturalization.
With respect to point number one, the records clearly disclose that petitioner was born in the City of Manila on January 22, 1928. On his admission, he stayed in Manila from his birth up to 1944 where he has continuously studied (t.s.n., pp. 3 & 4). In his Alien Certificate of Registration (exh. c) dated November 28, 1950, he gave as his place of residence and address 825 San Nicolas, Manila. Likewise, in his Immigrant Certificate of Residence dated February 23, 1956 (exh. d) his address appears to be at 425 San Nicolas, Manila. In his residence certificate for the year 1961 (Exh. j-1) his place of residence is given as 425 San Nicolas, Manila. And yet in his petition for naturalization he states in the 2nd paragraph thereof the following "my present place of residence is Moonlight Soap Factory, Dagupan City and my former residence is Calasiao, Pangasinan up to 1953." In a number of cases this Court has held that the requirement of Sec. 7 of the Revised Naturalization Act that the petitioner for naturalization must set forth in his petition his present and former places of residence is mandatory and non-compliance therewith is fatal to the application and that such omission affects the jurisdiction of the court taking cognizance of the case. 1 The reason for this is obvious because non-compliance with this mandatory requirement deprives the government and the general public of the opportunity to check up petitioner’s character or activities for the purpose of determining the fitness of the petitioner to merit the high privilege of becoming a citizen of the Republic.
Additionally, the admitted fact that petitioner has been using an alias (Lee Han Too) for which he obtained no judicial authority is a violation of the Anti-Alias Law (C. C. 142). Consequently, petitioner can not be considered as having conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his period of residence in the Philippines.
Having come to this conclusion, the Court finds no need for discussing the other points raised in the Government’s brief.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the application for naturalization of petitioner is denied, with costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Ong Ping Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19575, Feb. 26, 1965; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19694, March 30, 1965; Tan Nga Kok v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16767, June 30, 1965.
