G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, movant-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO COKENG, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines sought the revocation of Francisco Cokeng’s certificate of naturalization. The Supreme Court’s initial decision ordered revocation on two grounds: (1) Cokeng failed to state all his former places of residence in his amended application for naturalization, specifically omitting his residence at 28, 12th Street, corner Broadway, Quezon City, which was revealed in several public documents he executed between 1951 and 1954; and (2) he lacked good moral character and irreproachable conduct, as evidenced by alleged under-declarations of his income. Cokeng filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration is whether Cokeng’s failure to disclose all his places of residence in his naturalization application justifies the revocation of his naturalization certificate under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 , notwithstanding his claim of good faith and the concept of a single legal domicile.

RULING

The Court, in its Resolution, DENIED the motion for reconsideration and AFFIRMED the revocation of Cokeng’s naturalization certificate.
The Court held that the requirement in Section 7 of the Naturalization Law to state “present and past places of residence” refers to actual physical residences, not merely legal domicile. This requirement aims to enable the public and government agencies to investigate the applicant’s conduct thoroughly. Omitting a place of residence, regardless of good faith, frustrates this purpose and is fatal to the application. The Court cited precedents (Qua vs. Republic, O Ku Phuan vs. Republic) establishing that such an omission affects the court’s jurisdiction and renders the naturalization illegally procured under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 . The Court further ruled that a naturalization certificate obtained when statutory qualifications did not exist in fact is “illegally procured,” and proof of fraud is unnecessary for cancellation; illegality alone is sufficient.
Regarding the second ground on income declarations, the Court found the evidence confusing due to conflicting reports from different groups of Bureau of Internal Revenue examiners. However, given the ruling on the first ground, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve this issue definitively for the disposition of the case.
Justices Fernando and Makalintal concurred in a separate opinion, voting to grant the motion for reconsideration and reverse the initial decision. They argued that in denaturalization proceedings, the government bears a strict burden of proof, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the citizen, especially when the attack comes long after naturalization and the citizen has committed no act of lawlessness. Justice Angeles, dissenting, believed that the publication of Cokeng’s ownership of a house in Quezon City in the petition provided sufficient notice to the public, negating concealment, and no adverse evidence had been presented from that locality.