Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > February 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25805 February 27, 1969 - VICTOR NGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25805. February 27, 1969.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, VICTOR NGO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Nicolas Jumapao for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C . Borromeo and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; NATURALIZATION; FAILURE TO PUBLISH PETITION, JURISDICTIONAL; DECISION THEREON IS NULL AND VOID. — The petition has not been published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 473. Although a notice of the filing of said petition, making reference to some data therein contained, and stating the date and place of the hearing thereof was published, this is not sufficient compliance of the legal provision. As a consequence, the lower court acquired no jurisdiction to hear the case and the decision appealed from is null and void.

2. ID.; ID.; FACTS INDICATIVE OF FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENT OF LUCRATIVE INCOME .— Petitioner testified that he had a yearly income of P4,200 as salesman of the Botica Nueva, in Cebu City, since 1955. This evidence is, however, unworthy of credence for: (1) he was born in 1942, so that he was only thirteen years of age in 1955, and it is inconceivable that he then had a salary of P350 a month; (2) the Botica Nueva is owned by his brother-in-law and it has been repeatedly held that salaries allegedly earned in business establishments belonging to a close relative of an applicant for naturalization should be regarded with grave doubts; (3) as late as 1965, when the case was heard and decided, petitioner was merely a commerce student, so that, in all probability, he could not have devoted full time to his employment; and (4) it does not appear that he is a member of the Social Security System, thus rendering his alleged employment in the Botica Nueva "extremely doubtful."


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu granting the petition of Victor Ngo to be naturalized as citizen of the Philippines. The Solicitor General maintains that the lower court erred in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1.." . . taking cognizance of the proceedings despite lack of publication of the petition as required by law.

2.." . . finding that petitioner has a lucrative income.

3.." . . finding the character witnesses are credible persons.

4.." . . granting the petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

The first assignment of error is predicated upon the undisputed fact that, in violation of Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which provides that —

"Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner’s expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Garette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

the petition herein has not been so published. Although a notice of the filing of said petition, making reference to some data therein contained, and stating the date and place of the hearing thereof was published, this is not sufficient compliance with said legal provision. As a consequence, the lower court acquired no jurisdiction to hear this case and the decision appealed from is null and void. As early as November 29, 1958, this Court had already held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . in order that a court could validly try and decide any case, ‘it must have jurisdiction both over the subject-matter and over the persons of the parties’ (Comments on the Rules of Court, by Moran, Vol. I [1957 ed.] p. 128). Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner is acquired by his voluntary submission to the authority of the Court, resulting from the filing of the complaint or petition. Jurisdiction over other parties may be obtained, either by their voluntary appearance or by service of summons (42 Am. Jur. p.). In a proceeding in rem, which binds the ‘whole world’, the latter is, in legal contemplation, a party therein, for, otherwise, it could not be bound by the result thereof. If being impossible to serve summons personally upon every human being in this world, the summons must be published as provided by law. Otherwise, the court would have no jurisdiction over all parties concerned and, as a consequence, any decision rendered in the case would be a nullity (42 Am. Jur. 8; Scott w. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 38 L. ed. 896, 14 S. Ct. 1108; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L. ed. 565; Earle v. McVeigh, 91 U.S. 503, 23 L. ed. 398; Hobby v. Bunch, 83 Ga. 1, 10 S.E. 113, 20 Am. St. Rep. 301; Davies v. Thompson, 61 Okla. 21, 160 P. 75, LRA 1917-B 395; Greenwood v. Fur [Tex Civ. App.] 251 S.W. 332; 44 Am. Jur. 98). For this reason, it is well settled that the procedure prescribed by law for the naturalization of an alien ‘should be strictly followed’ (2 C.J. 1120, citing In re Hollo, 206 Fed. 852; Ex parte Lange, 197 Fed. 769; In re Liberman, 193 Fed. 301; State v. King County Superior Ct., 75 Wash. 239, 134 P. 916; see, also, 3 C.J.S. 844). In the language of Corpus Juris Secundum, naturalization laws ‘should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against applicant for citizenship’ (3 C.J.S. 833). And such, accordingly, has been the criterion adopted by this Court in the interpretation and application of our naturalization laws (Pardo v. Republic, 85 Phil. 323; 47 Off. Gaz., 3447-3450; Ng v. Republic, 94 Phil. 366; 50 Off. Gaz., 1599; Yu v. Republic, L-3808, July 29, 1952; Bautista v. Republic 87 Phil., 818; De la Cruz v. Republic, 49 Off. Gaz. [3] 958; Tiao v. Republic, 95 Phil., 709; Sam v. Republic, 98 Phil., 592; 52 Off. Gaz., [1] 145; Ong Son Cui v. Republic, 101 Phil., 649; 55 Off. Gaz, [22] 4044.)

x       x       x


"In short, non-compliance with the requirements thereof, relative to the publication of the petition, affects the jurisdiction of the court. It constitutes a fatal defect, for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the case, . . ." 1

Moreover, petitioner testified that he had a yearly income of P4,200 as salesman of the Botica Nueva, in Cebu City, since 1955. This evidence is, however, unworthy of credence for: (1) he was born in 1942, so that he was only thirteen years of age in 1955, and it is inconceivable that he then had a salary of P350 a month; (2) the Botica Nueva is owned by his brother-in-law, and it has been repeatedly held that salaries allegedly earned in business establishments belonging to a close relative of an applicant for naturalization should be regarded with grave doubts; 2 (3) as late as 1965, when this case was heard and decided, petitioner was merely a commerce student, so that, in all probability, he could not have devoted full time to his alleged employment; and (4) it does not appear that he is a member of the Social Security System, thus rendering his alleged employment in the Botica Nueva "extremely doubtful." 3 The first and second assignments of error are, accordingly, well taken, in view of which it is unnecessary to take up the other assignments of error.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed, and the petition herein dismissed, with costs against Petitioner-Appellee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 104 Phils., 894-895, 896.

2. Velasco v. Republic, L-14214, May 25, 1960; Tan v. Republic, L- 14861, March 17, 1961; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, L-12400, March 29, 1961; Tan v. Republic, L-14860, May 30, 1961; Que Choc Gui v. Republic, L-16184, Sept. 30, 1961; Uy v. Republic, L-17622, May 29, 1962; Go A. Leng v. Republic, L-19836, June 21, 1965.

3. Uy v. Republic, L-20799, Nov. 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






February-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20351 February 27, 1969 - MAXIMINO VICENTE v. BENITO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20700 February 27, 1969 - FIDEL TEODORO v. FELIX MACARAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20913 February 27, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO VACAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22228 February 27, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22333 February 27, 1969 - LUCIANO AZUR, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22726 February 27, 1969 - CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23076 February 27, 1969 - NICANOR M. BALTAZAR v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23515 February 27, 1969 - CHOA HAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25732 February 27, 1969 - VARGAS PLOW FACTORY INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-25805 February 27, 1969 - VICTOR NGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26522 February 27, 1969 - ANTONIO FAVIS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SABANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26575 February 27, 1969 - PEDRO DIMASACAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26868 February 27, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO ESTEBIA

  • G.R. No. L-29333 February 27, 1969 - MARIANO LL. BADELLES v. CAMILO P. CABILI

  • G.R. No. L-29658 February 27, 1969 - ENRIQUE V. MORALES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-22586 February 27, 1969 - JULIANA B. BRILLANTES v. MARIANO R. GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. L-25532 February 28, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WILLIAM J. SUTER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27451 February 28, 1969 - PAZ ONGSIACO, ET AL. v. ROMAN D. DALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29864 February 28, 1969 - CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 481 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: VIRGINIA C. ALMIREZ v. ARTURO P. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-21286 February 28, 1969 - FILEMON CRUZ v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-23470 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: SY SUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25874 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL C. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27345 February 28, 1969 - LEONARDO CATAIN v. HERMINIO RIOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29058 February 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS LACANDAZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21267 February 28, 1969 - FILOMENO ANCIANO v. MOISES G. OTADOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29865 February 28, 1969 - WENCESLAO DESCUATAN v. SANCHO M. BALAYON

  • G.R. No. L-21062 February 28, 1969 - FLORENCIO CABONITALLA, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26894-96 February 28, 1969 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28652 February 28, 1969 - ALFREDO B. BARAÑGAN v. VICENTE HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29553 February 28, 1969 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES

  • G.R. Nos. L-17504 and L-17506 February 28, 1969 - RAMON DE LA RAMA, ET AL. v. MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20895 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: RAMON HONG CHIONG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21676 February 28, 1969 - VICENTE ALDABA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22506 February 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION M. SIAYNGCO, ET AL. v. MARTIN COSTIBOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23248 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL UY v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-23289 February 28, 1969 - JOVENCIO LUANSING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24170 February 28, 1969 - ILLUH ASAALI, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24615 February 28, 1969 - LEONARDO AVILA v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-25913 February 28, 1969 - RAYMUNDO CASTRO v. APOLONIO BUSTOS

  • G.R. No. L-26100 February 28, 1969 - CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.