GR L 19897; (June, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19897; June 24, 1965
JOAQUIN TAN alias TAN YAM LAI, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On February 16, 1960, Joaquin Tan alias Tan Yam Lai filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Quezon. His original petition did not mention that he had filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, nor did it allege any facts claiming an exemption from that requirement. The petition was published as directed by the court. On May 12, 1960, petitioner filed an amendatory petition to add the allegation that he finished his elementary and secondary education and reached the sophomore year in Engineering, all in government-recognized schools. This amendatory petition was not published. The provincial fiscal opposed the petition on the ground that the record failed to show petitioner had filed the requisite declaration of intention. Despite the opposition, the trial court allowed petitioner to present evidence and later granted the petition for naturalization. The Republic appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for naturalization is valid despite the original petition’s failure to allege compliance with or exemption from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention, and the subsequent failure to publish the amendatory petition that attempted to add such allegations.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and dismissed the petition. The original petition was void for non-compliance with the Revised Naturalization Law ( Commonwealth Act No. 473 ). Section 7 of the law requires the petition to contain a statement that the applicant has complied with the requirements of Section 5 (filing a declaration of intention) or is exempt under Section 6. The failure to include such a statement, or an allegation of facts supporting an exemption, constitutes a fatal defect. The amendatory petition, which attempted to add allegations regarding education (a potential ground for exemption under Section 6), was not published as required by Section 9 of the law. Since the original petition was void, the amendatory petition should have been published anew. The lack of publication of the amendatory petition was a further fatal defect. Therefore, the petition for naturalization was properly dismissed.