GR 39507; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 39507 September 28, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FRANCISCO SIM TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, FRANCISCO SIM, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Francisco Sim’s petition for naturalization was granted by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan on January 30, 1957. On July 6, 1959, his motion to take the oath was granted, and he took his oath and received a Certificate of Naturalization on July 16, 1959. In 1972, Sim filed an ex-parte motion to retake his oath, seeking to comply with a Supreme Court ruling and a Solicitor General circular requiring a 30-day interval between the order allowing the oath and the actual oath-taking. His 1959 oath had been taken only 10 days after the order.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed, arguing that the original 1959 proceedings were void due to lack of notice to the OSG as required by Republic Act No. 530 . The OSG moved to declare all proceedings null and to dismiss the case. The trial court, after a hearing on November 15, 1972, granted Sim’s motion to retake the oath. Upon the OSG’s motion for reconsideration, the court modified its order, declaring the 1959 proceedings void but upholding the 1972 proceedings and allowing Sim to retake his oath after 30 days from notice to the OSG. The Republic appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in not declaring all proceedings, including the 1972 hearing, null and void, and in allowing Sim to retake his oath of allegiance.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court agreed that the 1959 proceedings were null and void due to the failure to notify the OSG, which deprived the government of its statutory right to investigate and oppose the applicant’s compliance with legal requirements before oath-taking, as mandated by RA 530.
However, the Court upheld the validity of the 1972 proceedings. The OSG was duly notified of the 1972 hearing and was represented by the City Fiscal. During that hearing, Sim presented comprehensive evidence to prove his continuous compliance with all qualifications since 1959, including lawful residence, profession, clean record, and payment of taxes. This shifted the burden to the OSG to rebut this evidence. The OSG had the opportunity at that hearing to contest Sim’s evidence or conduct its own investigation but failed to do so. The trial court correctly found Sim had met all requirements and properly allowed him to retake his oath in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed.