G.R. No. L-32398. January 27, 1992.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PO YO BI TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES: PO YO BI, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Po Yo Bi, a Chinese national, filed a petition for naturalization. He subsequently filed two amended petitions. The second amended petition, filed on June 19, 1961, contained substantive amendments regarding his income, residence, linguistic ability, and his children’s education. The trial court issued an amended notice of hearing for this petition, which was published. However, the second amended petition itself was never published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation, nor was it posted as required by law. After trial, the lower court granted the petition. Following the two-year waiting period, the court allowed Po Yo Bi to take his oath of allegiance. The Republic appealed, arguing multiple fatal defects in the proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in granting Po Yo Bi’s petition for naturalization and allowing him to take his oath as a Filipino citizen.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and order. The grant of naturalization was void due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural and substantive requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 473, the Revised Naturalization Law. First, the failure to publish the second amended petition itself was a fatal defect. Jurisprudence mandates that the petition itself, not merely a notice of hearing, must be published to allow the public to scrutinize its allegations. Second, the amended petitions fatally omitted an averment that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, a fundamental statutory requirement. Third, the petitioner failed to prove his exemption from filing a declaration of intention. His claim of continuous residence was undermined by his admission of studying in Manila, which constituted an interruption. Fourth, his character witnesses were not credible. Their joint affidavits were executed before the petition was filed, and their testimonies revealed they did not possess the requisite personal knowledge of his conduct throughout the entire statutory period. Finally, as a Chinese national, he failed to submit evidence that he obtained permission from the Republic of China’s Minister of Interior to renounce his allegiance, a settled prerequisite. These collective deficiencies warranted the denial of his petition.