GR L 19834; (October, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19834; October 27, 1964
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, FELIX A. QUA alias QUA HOCK DU, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Felix A. Qua, a citizen of Nationalist China, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Albay. His petition alleged, among other qualifications, that his permanent residence was Legaspi City, that he had continuously lived in the Philippines, and that he had none of the disqualifications under the law. After publication and trial, the lower court granted his petition for naturalization.
The Republic of the Philippines appealed, contending that the petition was fatally defective for two reasons. First, it failed to state the petitioner’s present and former places of residence as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The petition only stated his permanent residence in Legaspi City. During trial, however, Qua testified that after graduating high school in 1957, he resided in Manila at 1771 A. Mabini Street, Malate, while returning to Legaspi during vacations. Second, the petition failed to allege that the petitioner believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for naturalization is fatally defective for its failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law regarding the statement of residences and the allegation of belief in constitutional principles.
RULING
Yes, the petition is fatally defective. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition. Regarding the omission of residences, the Court held that Section 7 requires the petition to set forth the applicant’s “present and former places of residence” to give the public and government agencies a meaningful opportunity to gather information and voice objections upon publication. This requirement is not limited to legal residence or domicile but includes actual, physical residence, even if temporary. Qua’s actual residence in Manila was a material fact suppressed from the petition, defeating the law’s purpose of enabling investigation into his conduct in all communities where he lived. This non-compliance cannot be cured by evidence presented during trial, as established in Lo vs. Republic.
Regarding the failure to allege belief in the principles underlying the Constitution, the Court ruled this omission was likewise fatal. Qua’s contention that evidence during trial cured the defect was rejected. The record showed he only testified to knowing some constitutional principles, not to believing in them. Evidence of knowledge is not evidence of belief. The absence of both an allegation in the petition and an explicit declaration of belief during trial, especially from someone educated in Philippine schools, warranted denial. Following Ching vs. Republic, courts must not admit a petitioner absent both allegation and competent proof of such belief.