GR L 2733; (December, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2733. December 21, 1950.
In the matter of the petition of JOSE PIO BARRETO, BENITO ONG BARRETO, and SEBASTIAN ONG BARRETO to be admitted citizens of the Philippines, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioners-appellees Jose Pio Barretto, Benito Ong Barreto, and Sebastian Ong Barreto filed separate petitions for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court ordered the publication of the notices in the Official Gazette and in the newspaper Las Noticias. While publication was duly made in Las Noticias, the publication in the Official Gazette was delayed because the July 1948 issue, which contained the notices, was printed but not yet released due to the destruction by fire of the Bureau of Printing’s building. The hearing proceeded on November 5, 1948, with the petitioners presenting a certificate from the Bureau of Printing attesting to the printing of the notices in the July issue. The Solicitor General opposed the petitions, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the 90-day period from the last publication required by law could not be met since the Official Gazette issue was not yet released, and that the petitioners could not effectively renounce their Chinese nationality.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitions despite the delayed release of the Official Gazette containing the publication notice.
2. Whether the petitioners are disqualified for naturalization due to their inability to effectively renounce their Chinese nationality under Chinese law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decisions granting the petitions.
1. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the date of issue indicated in the Official Gazette is conclusively presumed to be the date of publication under the Revised Administrative Code. The delay in the actual release was beyond the petitioners’ control. The purpose of publication—to inform the public and relevant authorities—was substantially complied with, as notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation and all other formalities were met, and the Solicitor General actively opposed the petitions. Non-release of the Gazette did not prejudice the opposition.
2. On renunciation of nationality, the Court rejected the appellant’s contention, following its precedent in Parado vs. Republic of the Philippines, which held that such a requirement under Chinese law is not a bar to naturalization under Philippine law.
Separate Opinion: Justice Pablo dissented, arguing that mere printing does not constitute publication; the Gazette must be circulated. Since it was not released, the 90-day period had not begun, and the hearing was premature.
AI Generated by Armztrong.