G.R. No. L-19829, August 31, 1970
Republic of the Philippines, movant-appellant, v. Francisco Co Keng, Respondent-Appellee.

FACTS

The case originated from a petition for denaturalization filed by the Solicitor General against Francisco Co Keng, who had taken his oath as a Filipino citizen on December 29, 1958, pursuant to a 1956 decision granting his naturalization. The petition alleged two grounds: (1) that Co Keng fraudulently obtained his certificate by stating he was a resident of Manila when he actually resided in Quezon City, thereby questioning the Manila court’s jurisdiction (non-compliance with Section 8 of the Naturalization Law); and (2) that he was guilty of tax evasion. The Court of First Instance denied the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court initially reversed the lower court and ordered the certificate revoked on July 30, 1966. Upon motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court, in a resolution dated May 4, 1968, found the tax evasion charge not clearly established. However, by a divided vote, it denied the motion on a different ground: that Co Keng’s naturalization was illegally obtained because his application failed to state one of his places of residence (No. 28, 12th Street, Quezon City) as required by Section 7 of the Naturalization Law. Co Keng filed a supplementary second motion for reconsideration, arguing that denaturalizing him for violating Section 7 would be a denial of due process since the petition for denaturalization was based solely on Section 8 (jurisdictional residence), a charge which was found to be untrue. The Solicitor General concurred with this due process argument.

ISSUE

Whether Francisco Co Keng can be denaturalized on the ground of non-compliance with Section 7 of the Naturalization Law (failure to state all places of residence in his application) when the petition for denaturalization filed against him did not allege such ground but was based solely on an alleged violation of Section 8 (lack of jurisdictional residence).

RULING

The Supreme Court granted Co Keng’s supplementary second motion for reconsideration. It set aside its previous decision and resolutions ordering denaturalization and affirmed the lower court’s judgment denying the petition for cancellation of his certificate of naturalization. The Court held that to denaturalize him for a violation of Section 7, which was not alleged in the petition nor the subject of evidence at trial, would constitute a denial of due process. The Court had previously remanded the case for an investigation into Co Keng’s conduct in Quezon City to serve the purpose of Section 7 (enabling public investigation of an applicant’s conduct). The Solicitor General’s manifestation reported that the investigation yielded no derogatory information against Co Keng. Consequently, the filing of an amended petition alleging a Section 7 violation was deemed unnecessary and without practical purpose, as the underlying reason for the requirement had been satisfied by the negative investigation results.