GR L 20819; (November, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20819 November 29, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GAN TSITUNG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. GAN TSITUNG, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
On November 14, 1953, petitioner-appellant Gan Tsitung filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision granting the petition on December 24, 1954. On December 26, 1956, Gan Tsitung was allowed to take his oath of allegiance, and a certificate of naturalization was issued to him. Subsequently, on May 10, 1962, the Solicitor General filed a petition to annul the decision and cancel the certificate of naturalization. The ground for the petition was that the notice of the filing and hearing of the naturalization petition had been published in the Official Gazette only once, instead of once a week for three consecutive weeks as required by Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law. After a hearing, the lower court issued an order on October 15, 1962, granting the Solicitor General’s petition and annulling the decision and cancelling the certificate. Gan Tsitung appealed this order.
ISSUE
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the violation of the publication requirement under Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law deprived the lower court of jurisdiction to hear the naturalization application and rendered its decision null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court. It held that the publication of the notice only once in the Official Gazette was a clear and incomplete compliance with the statutory requirement, which was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court to hear and decide the petition. The Court abandoned its earlier view in Barretto vs. Republic and aligned itself with the doctrine established in Ong Son Cui vs. Republic, which explicitly held that a single publication is a fatal defect that impairs the court’s jurisdiction, regardless of who was to blame for the non-compliance. This doctrine was reiterated in subsequent cases. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the new rule should not retroactively affect his 1954 decision and 1956 certificate, reasoning that if the court lacked jurisdiction from the outset, its decision and all subsequent acts based on it were null and void. The Pomeroy vs. Director of Prisons case cited by appellant was distinguished as it involved errors that did not affect the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the order annulling the decision and cancelling the certificate of naturalization was affirmed.