G.R. No. L-20819




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-20819 November 29, 1965 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GAN TSITUNG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. GAN TSITUNG, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee. Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Associates for petitioner-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellee. CONCEPCION, J.: Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila annulling a decision thereof and cancelling the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto. On December 24, 1954, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines, filed on November 14, 1953, by appellant Gan Tsitung. On the latter's motion, he was, on December 26, 1956, allowed to and did take his oath of allegiance as citizen of the Philippines and the corresponding certificate of naturalization was issued to him. Subsequently, or on May 10, 1962, the Solicitor General filed a petition praying that said decision and certificate of naturalization be respectively annulled and cancelled, upon the ground that the notice of the filing of said petition and of the hearing thereof had been published in the Official Gazette only once, instead of once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in violation of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law. After due hearing said court issued on October 15, 1962, the order complained of granting relief sought by the Solicitor General. Hence the present appeal. The only issue in this appeal is whether said violation of the Revised Naturalization Law had deprived the lower court of its jurisdiction to hear said application and, accordingly, nullified the decision granting the same. Appellant maintains the negative view, relying upon Barretto vs. Republic, G.R. Nos. L-2738-40 (December 21, 1950), and Delgado vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-2546 (January 28, 1950). The aforesaid issue was, however, neither decided nor raised in the Delgado case. Moreover, the view adopted in the Barretto case was abandoned in Ong Son Cui vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-9858 (May 29, 1957), in which we explicitly held that "there being only one publication of said notice hearing in this case in the Official Gazette, the same is clearly incomplete and, therefore, insufficient to confer jurisdiction to the court a quo to try the case and grant the petition." This doctrine was reiterated in Celestino Co y Quing Reyes vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-10761 (November 29, 1958), upon the ground that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Act, relative to the publication of the aforesaid notice once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks — ... 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, regardless of whether the one to blame therefor is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel. ... The same conclusion was reached in Ng Bui Kui vs. Republic, L-11172 (December 27, 1958) and Tan Cona vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13224 (April 27, 1960). In the case last cited we declared that publication of said notice twice in the Official Gazette was insufficient to confer upon the lower court "jurisdiction to hear and render judgment therein." It is urged, however, that the rule laid down in these cases cannot retroactively affect the decision rendered in favor of appellant herein on December 24, 1954, and the oath of allegiance taken by him and the certificate of naturalization to him issued on December 26, 1956, but, if the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear appellant's petition for naturalization, it follows necessarily that said decision is null and void, and that so are, accordingly, the oath of allegiance taken and the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto. Pomeroy vs. Director of Prisons, L-11284-85 (February 24, 1960), cited by appellant is not in point, for the case specifically limited its effect to final judgments which are valid, although painted with an error that "in no wise affected the jurisdiction of the court ... to render it." WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Barrera, J., is on leave. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation