G.R. No. L-21958 September 28, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FELIPE DE JESUS DY TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. FELIPE DE JESUS DY, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Felipe de Jesus Dy filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. The notice of the petition, as posted and published, omitted important averments from the petition, including the averment in paragraph 12 concerning his belief in Philippine constitutional principles, his proper conduct, social mingling with Filipinos, and desire to embrace Filipino customs. The petition itself did not allege he was of good moral character. During trial, petitioner submitted various documents but failed to submit clearances from the NBI and from the chiefs of police, courts, and fiscals of Manila and Cebu City. He demonstrated ability to speak and write English and Cebu Visayan. The records revealed he used the alias “Agong,” which appeared in official documents like his immigrant certificate of residence and business permit, but this alias was not included in his petition or the published notice. He also used various name permutations (e.g., Felipe Yu Dy de Jesus, Felipe Y. Dy, Felipe Dy Y. Yu) in different official records, though his petition stated only “Felipe de Jesus Dy.” His petition stated only one place of residence (Barrio Tampucon, Ayungon, Negros Oriental), omitting his residences in Dumaguete City, Cebu City, and Manila where he studied for many years. He received a significant portion of his education (elementary and high school) in Chinese schools. His witnesses’ knowledge of his conduct during his periods of residence in Cebu and Manila was limited.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for naturalization of Felipe de Jesus Dy should be granted.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition. The Court found multiple fatal defects: (1) The notice of the petition was not a verbatim copy of the petition as required by law, constituting a jurisdictional flaw. (2) The petitioner’s use of the alias “Agong” without judicial authority and its omission from the petition and notice demonstrated improper conduct. (3) The petitioner failed to include in his petition all the names by which he was known in various official records. (4) The petitioner failed to state all his previous residences in the petition and notice. (5) His attendance at Chinese schools for a major part of his education negated his claim of having imbibed Filipino customs and traditions. (6) His petition did not specifically allege he was of good moral character as required by law. (7) His good moral character was not satisfactorily established, as his witnesses could not adequately attest to his conduct during his lengthy residences in Cebu and Manila, and he lacked necessary clearances from those jurisdictions.