GR L 25805; (February, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25805 February 27, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, VICTOR NGO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Victor Ngo filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The court granted his petition. The Republic of the Philippines appealed, raising several errors. It was undisputed that the petition itself was not published as required by Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 . Instead, only a notice of the filing of the petition, referencing some of its data and stating the hearing date and place, was published. Petitioner testified he had a yearly income of P4,200 as a salesman for Botica Nueva in Cebu City since 1955. He was born in 1942, making him 13 years old in 1955. Botica Nueva was owned by his brother-in-law. In 1965, during the hearing, petitioner was still a commerce student.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the lack of publication of the petition as required by law.
2. Whether the petitioner proved he had a lucrative income.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition.
1. On Jurisdiction: The court held that the failure to publish the petition itself as mandated by Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 was a fatal defect. Publication of a mere notice referring to the petition is insufficient. Naturalization proceedings are in rem and bind the whole world. The publication requirement is jurisdictional, and non-compliance deprives the court of authority to hear the case, rendering its decision null and void.
2. On Lucrative Income: The court found petitioner’s evidence of income unworthy of credence. It was inconceivable that he earned P350 a month at age 13. The salary allegedly came from a business owned by a close relative (brother-in-law), which should be regarded with grave doubt. His status as a commerce student in 1965 made full-time employment improbable. Furthermore, his non-membership in the Social Security System rendered the alleged employment extremely doubtful. Thus, petitioner failed to prove a lucrative income.
Given the resolution of the first and second assignments of error, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to address the other issues raised. The petition was dismissed with costs against petitioner-appellee.