Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22550. May 19, 1966.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. ANDRES REYES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, and ANG TO, Respondents.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor S. V. Bernardo for Petitioner.

Jose T. Nery for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. NATURALIZATION; DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS; ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA NOT A DEFENSE. — Neither estoppel nor res judicata may be set up to bar the State from instituting proceedings for the cancellation of a certificate of citizenship found to have been fraudulently procured, even if the government had appeared and contested the application for naturalization before the court.

2. ID.; ID.; DECISION DENYING STATE’S RIGHT TO CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION APPEALABLE. — A decision denying the State’s right to cancellation of a naturalization certificate is a final sentence because it disposes of the conflicting claims of the Republic on one hand and the naturalized citizen on to other. Nothing more need be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the controversy. (I Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, p. 195, citing cases.) Being a final sentence, the same may, at the instance of either of the parties, be appealed to the Supreme Court. (Section 11, C.A. No. 473.)

3. ID.; ID.; APPEAL NOT LIMITED TO DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP. — The happenstance that Section 11 providing for appeals was placed immediately after Section 10 (which deals with the judgment upon an application for naturalization) and is way ahead of Section 18 (which refers to a decision on the question of the cancellation of a naturalization certificate), does not mean that appeal may be had only from a decision on a naturalization application. The language in Section 11 does not limit appeals to a decision on an application for citizenship. It speaks of final sentence in general. And, a decision on denaturalization proceedings is also a final sentence.

4. ID.; ID.; PROCEEDINGS INFUSED WITH PUBLIC INTEREST. — Denaturalization proceedings are infused with public interest, and the State should not be rendered helpless in the legitimate exercise of its right. To shackle its hands from appealing a decision under Section 18 may import a situation whereby the government is rendered impotent to withdraw the privilege of citizenship from an alien unworthy thereof.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


On January 7, 1958, respondent Ang To, a citizen of China, registered with the Rizal court a verified petition for naturalization. 1 On January 27, 1959, respondent Judge rendered judgment on the merits, admitting him to Philippine citizenship. On April 4, 1961, after hearing, respondent Judge directed that And To be allowed to take his oath of allegiance and that thereafter the corresponding certificate of naturalization issue in his favor.

On September 21, 1962, the Republic of the Philippines filed on the same court and in the same naturalization case, a motion praying that (a) the decision granting citizenship to respondent Ang To and the order allowing him to take his oath of allegiance be declared null and void, and that (b) the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto and its registration in the Civil Registry be cancelled. The motion to denaturalize was planted upon the grounds that Ang To obtained his naturalization fraudulently and illegally; that said Ang To did not file a declared of intention one year before the filing of his petition for naturalization; and that the court did not acquire jurisdiction to entertain said petition.

The evidence on the foregoing motion having been taken in, the same respondent Judge who granted the application for citizenship, rendered judgment on December 9, 1963 denying the denaturalization petition for lack of merit.

In due course, the Republic filed its notice of appeal and record on appeal. Opposition thereto was registered by respondent Ang To upon the averment that the decision sought to be appealed — which was rendered under Section 18 of the Naturalization Law — was not appealable.

On February 24, 1964, the respondent Judge issued an order disapproving the Record on Appeal and dismissing the appeal of the Republic for the reason that the "the only provision under the Naturalization Law regarding appeals is found in Section 11 of C.A. No. 473 and this section, it may be observed, is found well ahead of Section 18 providing the procedure in the cancellation of certificates of naturalization, so that it is obvious that said provision does not apply to cancellation of certificates of naturalization."

The Republic came to this Court on certiorari to annul the February 24th order and mandamus to compel approval of its appeal.

The judgment directing the issuance of a certificate of citizenship in naturalization proceedings is a mere grant of a political privilege conferred by the government upon the petitioning alien. It is subjected to the right of the government to ask for the cancellation of such certificate if found to have been illegally or fraudulently procured. Neither estoppel nor res judicata may be set up to bar the State from instituting appropriate proceedings directed at striking down a certificate of citizenship so issued. 2 And this, even on the face of the fact that the government appeared and contested petitioner’s application for naturalization before the court. 3

With the foregoing backdrop, we now face the problem posed in the decision under review: May the Republic of the Philippines appeal from a judgment denying its petition to denaturalized citizen?.

Adverting to the opinion below, we repeat that denial of the appeal was predicated solely upon the view that since Section 11 providing for appeals is placed well ahead of Section 18 giving the grounds for the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization of a naturalization certificate.

Section 11 of the Naturalization Law reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 11. Appeal. — The final sentence may, at the instance of either of the parties, be appealed to the Supreme Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

That a decision denying the State’s right to cancellation of a naturalization certificate is a final sentence, need not be essayed. Said decision disposed of the conflicting claims of the Republic on one hand and the naturalized citizen on the other. Nothing more need to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the controversy. 4

The happenstance that Section 11 providing for appeals was placed immediately after Section 10 (which deals with the judgment upon an application for naturalization)and is way ahead of Section 18 (which refers to a decision on the question of the cancellation of a naturalization certificate), does not mean that appeal may be had only from a decision on a naturalization application. The language in Section 11 does not limit appeals to a decision on an application for citizenship. It speaks of final sentence in general. Surely enough, a decision on denaturalization proceedings is also a final sentence. We have to take the thought conveyed by the statute as a whole; construe the constituent parts together; ascertain the legislative inconsistent from the whole act; consider each and every provision thereof in the light of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to make every part effective, harmonious, sensible. 5 Thus combining the diverse parts of the Naturalization Law with the obvious legislative intent, i.e., to give the State ample opportunity to make effective its statutory right to withdraw the privilege of citizenship theretofore granted, we find ourselves unable to discern, in the placement of Section 11, a legislative intent to deny the government’s right to appeal under Section 18, is so strong that the contrary theory cannot reasonably be supposed.

Besides, a common sense approach to statutory interpretation deserves consideration here. If a decision granting naturalization by a lower court may be the subject of review by this Court, equal reason there is to say that a decision denying the State’s right to withdraw such privilege may likewise be appealable. If because of fallibility a judgment of the Court of First Instance in the first case may be corrected, certainly the stamp of infallibility cannot be placed upon a decision of the same court in the second. And this because denaturalization proceedings are infused with public interest, and the State should not be rendered helpless in the legitimate exercise of its right. Really, to effectively shackle the hands of the State from appealing a decision under Section 18 may well, in the long run, import a situation whereby the government is rendered impotent to withdraw the privilege of citizenship to an alien unworthy thereof.

The view we take of this case is not without support in Philippine jurisprudence. In a 1932 case, 6 the Judge of First Instance of Manila admitted petitioner Paul A. Bell to Philippine citizenship. Naturalization certificate was, in due course, issued to petitioner. On February 7, 1931, the Attorney General presented a motion in the same Court to secure the cancellation of the naturalization certificate. Following, a hearing, the same Judge who heard the original application, directed the cancellation of the naturalization certificate of Paul A. Bell. When the latter attempted to appeal from this decision, he was met by the Attorney General’s motion challenging his right to appeal. But the court overruled the objection and approved the record on appeal. This Court, on appeal, there declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A resolution of the preliminary question offers no difficulties. The Naturalization Law, Act No. 2927, gives to the Court of First Instance of the province or district in which the petitioner resides exclusive original jurisdiction, and to the Supreme Court ‘appellate jurisdiction, as to the hearing of petitions for naturalization’ (sec. 6). The law further provides that ‘That final sentence may, at the request of either of the parties, be carried to the Supreme Court for revision in the form provided in section one hundred and forty-three and following sections of the Code of Civil Procedure’ (sec. 9). Aside from the general provisions to be found in section 18 of the Judiciary Law, Act No. 136, which grant the Supreme Court ‘appellate jurisdiction of all actions and special proceedings properly brought to it from the courts of first instance’, the special provisions to be found in the naturalization Law are applicable. The phrase ‘petitions for naturalization’ appearing in the statue should be given a liberal construction and should be taken as including not only the original petition for naturalization but also a motion to secure the annulment of an order allowing a petition for naturalization. We fully agree with Judge Goddard when, sitting in first instance, he observed: ‘To say that the law provides an appeal where a petitioner is simply denied citizenship and does not provide such an appeal to the highest court in the land when his prized certificate of citizenship is taken away from him and cancelled, in the same proceedings, seems absurd. This court does not believe that the Legislature meant that section 6 and 9 of Act No. 2927 should be so construed’. The motion of the Attorney General will be disallowed." 7

Really, the construction of Section 11 advocated by the trial court would sweep the ground out from under a number of cases which this Court has decided on appeals from decisions in denaturalization proceedings. 8

Conformably to the foregoing, the order of the respondent Judge of February 24, 1964, disapproving the Record on Appeal and dismissing the appeal interposed by the Republic of the Philippines, is hereby set aside; and the respondent Judge or whoever takes his place is hereby directed to give due course to the appeal. Costs against respondent Ang To. So ordered.

Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. In the Matter of the Petition to be Admitted a Citizen of the Philippines. Ang To, Petitioner, Naturalization Case No. 326.

2. 2 Am. Jur., p. 588; Republic v. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961; Republic v. Reyes, Et Al., L-20602, December 24, 1965. See also concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Laurel in Gurbuxani v. Government of the Philippines, 69 Phil. 280, 285-286.

3. 3 C.J.S., p. 860.

4. I Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, p. 195, citing Mejia v. Alimorong, 4 Phil. 573; Insular Gov’t v. Bishop of Nueva Ecija, 17 Phil. 487; Olsen & Co. v. Olsen, 48 Phil. 238; San Jose v. Castillo, 84 Phil. 839; Reyes v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-3720, June 24, 1952; Sian v. Maceren, 52 O.G., No. 7, p. 3563.

5. Crawford, Interpretation of Laws, pp. 260-261.

6. Paul A. Bell, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The Attorney-General, oppositor-appellee, 56 Phil. 667, 668-669.

7. Emphasis supplied. The present Naturalization Law is a reenactment of Act 2927 interpreted in the Bell decision. Hence, the following is illuminating: "Re-Enacted Statutes. — Generally, where a statute, or a provision thereof, has been reenacted by the legislature in the same or substantially the same, language, the law-makers are presumed to have adopted the construction placed upon such statute or provision by the court of last resort in the state, unless the statute as re-enacted clearly indicates a different intention. . . ." Crawford, Statutory Construction, p. 437.

8. Bell v. Attorney General, supra; Gurbuxani v. Government of the Philippines, supra; Tan Hoi v. Republic, L-15266, September 30, 1960; Republic v. Go Bon Lee, supra; Gan Tsitung v. Republic, L- 20819, November 29, 1965.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.