G.R. No. L-25356 November 25, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO BECOME A NATURALIZED FILIPINO CITIZEN. LI SIU LIAT alias PERFECTO alias NG SE LIAT, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On July 14, 1956, petitioner Li Siu Liat was declared a naturalized citizen by Judge Rafael Amparo. After the two-year statutory period, on July 19, 1958, he took his oath of allegiance and was issued Certificate of Naturalization No. 2414. On July 2, 1962, the Republic filed a petition to declare the naturalization null and void for lack of jurisdiction (due to single publication in the Official Gazette) and for fraud (suppressing the fact he had a common-law wife, Mary Go alias Go Ting Ty, and children with her). On July 26, 1965, Judge Jesus Y. Perez granted the petition and cancelled the naturalization certificate. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Judge Emigdio V. Nietes, who was temporarily assigned to Branch III of the Manila CFI via Administrative Order No. 243 (effective July 28, 1965) due to a vacancy, issued an order on October 15, 1965, reversing Judge Perez’s order and confirming the original naturalization. However, on October 11, 1965, Judge Placido C. Ramos was appointed ad interim to preside over Branch III, and he took his oath on October 12, 1965. Judge Nietes issued his order three days after Judge Ramos had assumed office.

ISSUE

Did the appointment and assumption of office by Judge Placido C. Ramos as the regular judge of Branch III terminate the authority of temporarily assigned Judge Emigdio V. Nietes to act on the motion for reconsideration, thereby rendering Judge Nietes’s order of October 15, 1965 null and void?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the authority of Judge Nietes, whose temporary assignment was based on the vacancy in Branch III under Section 51 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, terminated upon the qualification and assumption of office by the regularly appointed judge, Judge Ramos, on October 12, 1965. At the time Judge Nietes issued the order on October 15, 1965, he was neither a judge de jure (as there was an incumbent de jure judge) nor a judge de facto (as he lacked color of right to the office after the vacancy was filled). Furthermore, the exception allowing a transferred judge to decide a case totally or partly heard by him (under the second paragraph of Section 51 of the Judiciary Act and Section 9, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court) did not apply because Judge Nietes did not hear the case at all; the evidence was taken before Judge Perez. Consequently, the order issued by Judge Nietes was null and void. The appeal by the State was granted, and the order of Judge Nietes dated October 15, 1965, was set aside.