June 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > June 1982 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-36925 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: JOSE ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-36925. June 29, 1982.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE ONG, also known as JOSE C. ONG and as JOSE ONG Y CHUA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
SYNOPSIS
The Republic appealed from a lower court decision granting petitioner-appellee’s petition for naturalization. During the pendency thereof, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion praying for the dismissal of the case alleging that petitioner-appellee had filed an application for naturalization under Letter of Instruction No. 270 and was subsequently granted Philippine citizenship pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 923. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for being moot and academic, there being no further reason to continue with the case.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CITIZENSHIP; APPEAL FROM A DECISION GRANTING A PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION; DISMISSAL THEREOF FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — An appeal from a decision granting a petition for naturalization is dismissed where during the pendency thereof, the Office of the Solicitor General prayed for its dismissal alleging that petitioner-appellee had applied for naturalization under Letter of Instruction No. 270 and was granted Philippine citizenship under Presidential Decree No. 923.
R E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO, C.J.:
The Republic of the Philippines appealed from a lower court decision granting the petition for naturalization of appellee Jose Ong. The basis for its plea for the reversal thereof is that the joint affidavit of petitioner’s character witnesses does not conform with the requirements of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law; that petitioner, now appellee, failed to state in his petition all his former places of residence; that petitioner’s income did not satisfy the requirement of the law; and that the character witnesses could not be relied upon as insurers of petitioner’s character and conduct. 1 The Republic submitted its brief on the above issues. Petitioner-appellee did not file a brief on his behalf.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Subsequently, on March 16, 1982, there was a Manifestation and Motion by the Office of the Solicitor General, 2 alleging that: "1. The Republic of the Philippines has appealed to this Honorable Court the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI dated December 21, 1972 granting Philippine citizenship to Jose Ong, also known as Jose C. Ong and as Jose Ong y Chua; 2. During the pendency of the appeal, said Jose Ong filed an application for naturalization under Letter of Instruction No. 270 (SCN No. 7532) and upon recommendation of the Special Committee on Naturalization, he was granted Philippine citizenship on May 7, 1976 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 923. Copies of his Oath of Allegiance and Certificate of Naturalization are hereto attached as Annexes ‘1’ and ‘2’ respectively." 3 The prayer is to have this case dismissed for having become moot and academic. The manifestation is conclusive of the status of this appeal. There is no further reason for this case to continue in the docket of this Court.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed for being moot and academic. No costs.
Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Subsequently, on March 16, 1982, there was a Manifestation and Motion by the Office of the Solicitor General, 2 alleging that: "1. The Republic of the Philippines has appealed to this Honorable Court the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI dated December 21, 1972 granting Philippine citizenship to Jose Ong, also known as Jose C. Ong and as Jose Ong y Chua; 2. During the pendency of the appeal, said Jose Ong filed an application for naturalization under Letter of Instruction No. 270 (SCN No. 7532) and upon recommendation of the Special Committee on Naturalization, he was granted Philippine citizenship on May 7, 1976 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 923. Copies of his Oath of Allegiance and Certificate of Naturalization are hereto attached as Annexes ‘1’ and ‘2’ respectively." 3 The prayer is to have this case dismissed for having become moot and academic. The manifestation is conclusive of the status of this appeal. There is no further reason for this case to continue in the docket of this Court.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed for being moot and academic. No costs.
Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Record on Appeal, 22-31.
2. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Ruben E. Agpalo and Solicitor Florencio E. Jacinto.
3. Manifestation and Motion, 1.
