GR L 5424; (October, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5424 October 24, 1952
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and UY CHIONG, as an interested party, respondents.
FACTS
Uy Chiong filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on May 13, 1948. The lower court granted the petition on January 21, 1949. The Government appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision on July 23, 1951. On December 13, 1951, Uy Chiong filed a petition in the court of origin, asking to present evidence to show compliance with the additional requirements of Republic Act No. 530, alleging the two-year period prescribed therein had already elapsed. The Government opposed, contending the petition was premature. The lower court overruled the opposition and set a date for the reception of additional evidence on January 3, 1952. The Republic then filed this petition for certiorari to set aside that order.
ISSUE
The sole issue hinges on the interpretation of the word “promulgation” in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530, specifically from which decision—the trial court’s or the Supreme Court’s—the two-year period for the decision to become executory should be computed when an appeal is taken.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic and set aside the lower court’s order. The Court held that when a naturalization case is appealed, the two-year period prescribed in Republic Act No. 530 must be computed from the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court, not from the decision of the trial court. The Court reasoned that the use of the word “executory” in the law is significant, meaning the decision cannot be executed until after two years from the date it has become final. When the Government appeals, the decision of the trial court has no force and effect pending appeal, as it may be changed, modified, or reversed. The decision of the Supreme Court, in case of appeal, is the law of the case and has no retroactive effect. This interpretation aligns with the law’s purpose to give the Government a two-year period to test the applicant’s sincerity after a final decision. The Court cited its previous minute resolution in Chuasintek vs. Barcelona (G.R. No. L-5124), which impliedly affirmed the same interpretation.