GR L 23579; (August, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23579 August 30, 1974
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, and GO GUAN, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Go Guan filed a petition for naturalization, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Manila in a decision dated January 31, 1961. After the two-year probationary period, he moved to set the case for hearing for his oath-taking. The hearing was set but later dismissed without prejudice on April 18, 1964, for his failure to appear. Subsequently, Go Guan filed a motion for reconsideration, and the respondent judge set aside the dismissal order and scheduled a new hearing for the oath-taking. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a vigorous opposition to the oath-taking and a motion to vacate the 1961 decision and dismiss the petition. The State alleged multiple jurisdictional and substantive defects in the original petition, including fatal omissions in the petition itself, lack of publication, and Go Guan’s failure to meet qualifications like educating his children in prescribed schools. Despite this comprehensive challenge to the court’s very jurisdiction and the validity of its decision, the respondent judge issued an order on September 26, 1964, overruling the State’s opposition and setting the case for another hearing to receive evidence prior to the oath-taking.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in overruling the State’s opposition and proceeding with the hearing for oath-taking despite serious allegations that the original naturalization decision was void for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition, annulling the respondent judge’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle of jurisdiction. The State’s opposition, which sought to vacate the 1961 decision, directly attacked the trial court’s jurisdiction ab initio by alleging fatal defects in the petition, such as the failure to state all former places of residence and the failure to allege good moral character, which are mandatory requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law. These are not mere procedural lapses but jurisdictional prerequisites. When a petition for naturalization fails to allege these mandatory requirements, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the case, and any decision rendered is null and void.
Consequently, the respondent judge’s duty, upon the filing of such an opposition, was not to merely proceed to a hearing for oath-taking. His ministerial duty was to first resolve the jurisdictional challenge. By overruling the opposition and setting the case for hearing without first determining the validity of the foundational decision, the judge acted arbitrarily and in excess of his jurisdiction. The hearing for oath-taking presupposes a valid and existing decision. Where the decision itself is assailed as void, the court cannot proceed as if the decision were valid. The judge’s orders effectively disregarded the State’s right to assail a void judgment and constituted a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The Supreme Court made permanent the preliminary injunction it had issued, preventing the respondent judge from further proceeding in the case.