SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

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, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

R E S O L U T I O N

FERNANDO, C.J.:chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanrobles virtual law library

2 Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Ruben E. Agpalo and Solicitor Florencio E. Jacinto.chanrobles virtual law library

3 Manifestation and Motion, 1.