GR L 19451; (July, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19451 July 30, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF WADHU PRIBHDAS SHAHANI TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. WADHU PRIBHDAS SHAHANI, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
On August 18, 1960, Wadhu Pribhdas Shahani, a subject of India, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Notice of the hearing set for May 3, 1961, was published as required by law. Before the hearing, one of Shahani’s character witnesses, Felipe Ysmael, died. Shahani moved to substitute Jose Ma. Vallejo in place of the deceased witness. The City Fiscal of Iloilo, representing the Solicitor General, consented to the substitution but expressly conditioned his assent on the requirement that the petition, with the new witness’s affidavit incorporated, be published anew. Despite this condition, the court, in its order of May 19, 1961, allowed the substitution without ordering a new publication. The Republic moved for reconsideration, arguing that the substitution constituted a substantial amendment requiring republication, but no resolution on this motion appears in the record. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision admitting Shahani to Philippine citizenship.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court committed a reversible error in allowing the substitution of a deceased character witness without requiring a new publication of the petition, contrary to the condition set by the government’s representative.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed judgment and remanded the case for additional proceedings. The lower court committed a reversible error by allowing the substitution without the required republication. This case is distinguishable from Pe vs. Republic. First, in Pe, the substitute witness was the Provincial Governor, a widely known figure in the province where the hearing was held. Second, and more crucially, in the present case, the City Fiscal gave his assent to the substitution expressly subject to the condition of a new publication, which the law requires. This condition implied that the State needed sufficient time to gather and verify information about the substitute witness’s credibility and his relations with the petitioner. By not ordering a new publication, the court deprived the State of this important opportunity. The Court found no showing that in Pe, the government’s assent was similarly conditioned. Therefore, the judgment was reversed.