GR L 14866; (October, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14866; October 28, 1960
In re: Petition for Philippines citizenship. ANDRES ONG KHAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Andres Ong Khan filed a petition for naturalization on December 18, 1957. The provincial fiscal opposed the petition on the ground that it failed to show compliance with Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law ( Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended), which requires the filing of a declaration of intention one year prior to the petition, or any allegation of exemption from such requirement. The petitioner, in reply, claimed he was exempt because he was born in the Philippines and received his elementary and secondary education in government-recognized schools. With leave of court, he filed an amended petition incorporating this allegation of exemption. At the hearing, the fiscal objected to the presentation of evidence, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the amended petition was not republished as required by law. The trial court overruled the objection, allowed the evidence, and subsequently granted the petition for naturalization. The Republic appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for naturalization despite the petitioner’s failure to publish his amended petition, which supplied the essential allegation of exemption from filing a declaration of intention that was missing in the original, void petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and denied the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the original petition was void for non-compliance with the law, as it lacked the essential statement regarding compliance with or exemption from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention under Section 5. A mere allegation of birth in the Philippines, without the additional claim of having finished elementary and secondary education in recognized schools, was insufficient to constitute a claim for exemption under Section 6. Since the original petition was void, the amended petition, which cured this fatal defect, should have been treated as a new petition and published anew in accordance with Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The failure to publish the amended petition deprived the court of jurisdiction. The petition was thus denied without prejudice.
In a subsequent Resolution dated December 29, 1960, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration but granted a separate motion to remand the case to the trial court. The dispositive portion was amended to order the case remanded, with instructions for the trial court to ensure due publication of the amended petition and to give the parties a new opportunity to be heard, thereby avoiding the necessity of filing a completely new application.