G.R. No. L-11499. April 29, 1961.
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner-appellant, vs. Go Bon Lee, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu denying its petition to cancel the certificate of naturalization issued to Go Bon Lee. Go was granted citizenship on November 26, 1941, took his oath on February 11, 1942, and received Certificate No. 4. The Solicitor General filed for cancellation on August 15, 1951, alleging the certificate was illegally obtained. Specific grounds included Go’s failure to enroll all his minor children of school age in recognized schools teaching Philippine subjects and his non-compliance with the mandatory one-year interval between filing a declaration of intention and his petition for naturalization.
It was undisputed that Go filed his declaration of intention on May 23, 1940, but filed his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941, less than one year later, in direct violation of Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The lower court, however, held that he had substantially complied because the hearing of his petition was held more than a year after the declaration. Furthermore, at the time of his petition, Go had five minor children of school age, four of whom were born and residing in China and had never been enrolled in any Philippine school recognized by the Office of Private Education.

ISSUE

Whether the certificate of naturalization issued to Go Bon Lee should be cancelled for having been obtained illegally.

RULING

Yes, the certificate of naturalization is ordered cancelled. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. On the procedural defect, the Court ruled that the one-year interval between the declaration of intention and the filing of the petition is a mandatory, jurisdictional requirement. The lower court’s “substantial compliance” doctrine is erroneous; the express and explicit language of the law cannot be altered by courts based on expediency or good faith. To accept such a view would allow petitions to be filed immediately after the declaration as long as the hearing is delayed, effectively amending the law, which is beyond judicial power.
Regarding the enrollment of children, the legal requirement is mandatory. The fact that Go’s four minor children were born and lived in China does not excuse compliance. His claims of unsettled conditions in China and strict immigration laws were not valid excuses. His own testimony revealed he had taken one daughter to China and failed to show satisfactory proof of efforts to bring his other children to the Philippines for enrollment.
The Court also rejected the lower court’s view that the grant of citizenship was res judicata or that the government was in estoppel. The doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the Government asserting governmental rights. A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision therein is not res judicata as to matters supporting cancellation for illegal procurement. A certificate may be cancelled if obtained by misleading the court on material facts or for non-compliance with statutory conditions, which are matters of privilege, not right.