EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20819. November 29, 1965.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GAN TSITUNG, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. GAN TSITUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Sycip, Salazar, Luna, & Associates for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; NOTICE AND HEARING THEREOF ONCE A WEEK FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE WEEKS. — Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Act, relative to the publication of the notice of the filing of the petition and of the hearing thereof once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette affects the jurisdiction of the court. It constitutes a fatal defect, for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the case, regardless of whether the one to blame therefor is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel.
2. ID.; ID.; VALIDITY OF DECISION RENDERED BY THE LOWER COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION. — If the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition for naturalization, it follows necessarily that the decision rendered therein is null and void, and so are, accordingly, the oath of allegiance taken and the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto.
2. ID.; ID.; VALIDITY OF DECISION RENDERED BY THE LOWER COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION. — If the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition for naturalization, it follows necessarily that the decision rendered therein is null and void, and so are, accordingly, the oath of allegiance taken and the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila annulling a decision thereof and cancelling the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto.
On December 24, 1954, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines, filed on November 14, 1953, by appellant Gan Tsitung. On the latter’s motion, he was, on December 26, 1956, allowed to and did take his oath of allegiance as citizen of the Philippines and the corresponding certificate of naturalization was issued to him. Subsequently, or on May 10, 1962, the Solicitor General filed a petition praying that said decision and certificate of naturalization be respectively annulled and cancelled, upon the ground that the notice of the filing of said petition and of the hearing thereof had been published in the Official Gazette only once, instead of once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in violation of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law. After due hearing said court issued on October 15, 1962, the order complained of granting the relief sought by the Solicitor General. Hence the present appeal.
The only issue in this appeal is whether said violation of the Revised Naturalization Law had deprived the lower court of its jurisdiction to hear said application and, accordingly, nullified the decision granting the same. Appellant maintains the negative view, relying upon Barretto v. Republic, 87 Phil. 731 (Dec. 21, 1950), and Delgado v. Republic, G. R. No. L-2546 (Jan. 28, 1950). The aforesaid issue was, however, neither decided nor raised in the Delgado case. Moreover, the view adopted in the Barreto case was abandoned in Ong Son Cui v. Republic, 101 Phil. 649 (May 29, 1957), in which we explicitly held that "there being only one publication of said notice of hearing in this case in the Official Gazette, the same is clearly incomplete and, therefore, insufficient to confer jurisdiction to the court a quo to try the case and grant the petition." This doctrine was reiterated in Celestino Co y Quing Reyes v. Republic, 104 Phil. 889 (November 29, 1958), upon the ground that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Act, relative to the publication of the aforesaid notice once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks —
". . . affects the jurisdiction of the court. It constitutes a fatal defect, for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the case, regardless of whether the one to blame therefor is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The same conclusion was reached in Ng Bui Kui v. Republic, 104 Phil. 957 (Dec. 27, 1958) and Tan Cona v. Republic, 107 Phil. 710 (April 27, 1960). In the case last cited we declared that publication of said notice twice in the Official Gazette was sufficient to confer upon the lower court "jurisdiction to hear and render judgment therein.’
It is urged, however, that the rule laid down in these cases cannot retroactively affect the decision rendered in favor of appellant herein on December 24, 1954, and the oath of allegiance taken by him and the certificate of naturalization to him issued on December 26, 1956, but, if the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear appellant’s petition for naturalization, it follows necessarily that said decision is null and void, and that so are, accordingly, the oath of allegiance taken and the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto. Pomeroy v. Director of Prisons, L-11284-85 (February 24, 1960), cited by appellant is not in point, for that case specifically limited its effect to final judgment which are valid, although tainted with an error that "in no wise affected the jurisdiction of the court . . . to render it"
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
On December 24, 1954, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines, filed on November 14, 1953, by appellant Gan Tsitung. On the latter’s motion, he was, on December 26, 1956, allowed to and did take his oath of allegiance as citizen of the Philippines and the corresponding certificate of naturalization was issued to him. Subsequently, or on May 10, 1962, the Solicitor General filed a petition praying that said decision and certificate of naturalization be respectively annulled and cancelled, upon the ground that the notice of the filing of said petition and of the hearing thereof had been published in the Official Gazette only once, instead of once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in violation of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law. After due hearing said court issued on October 15, 1962, the order complained of granting the relief sought by the Solicitor General. Hence the present appeal.
The only issue in this appeal is whether said violation of the Revised Naturalization Law had deprived the lower court of its jurisdiction to hear said application and, accordingly, nullified the decision granting the same. Appellant maintains the negative view, relying upon Barretto v. Republic, 87 Phil. 731 (Dec. 21, 1950), and Delgado v. Republic, G. R. No. L-2546 (Jan. 28, 1950). The aforesaid issue was, however, neither decided nor raised in the Delgado case. Moreover, the view adopted in the Barreto case was abandoned in Ong Son Cui v. Republic, 101 Phil. 649 (May 29, 1957), in which we explicitly held that "there being only one publication of said notice of hearing in this case in the Official Gazette, the same is clearly incomplete and, therefore, insufficient to confer jurisdiction to the court a quo to try the case and grant the petition." This doctrine was reiterated in Celestino Co y Quing Reyes v. Republic, 104 Phil. 889 (November 29, 1958), upon the ground that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Act, relative to the publication of the aforesaid notice once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks —
". . . affects the jurisdiction of the court. It constitutes a fatal defect, for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the case, regardless of whether the one to blame therefor is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The same conclusion was reached in Ng Bui Kui v. Republic, 104 Phil. 957 (Dec. 27, 1958) and Tan Cona v. Republic, 107 Phil. 710 (April 27, 1960). In the case last cited we declared that publication of said notice twice in the Official Gazette was sufficient to confer upon the lower court "jurisdiction to hear and render judgment therein.’
It is urged, however, that the rule laid down in these cases cannot retroactively affect the decision rendered in favor of appellant herein on December 24, 1954, and the oath of allegiance taken by him and the certificate of naturalization to him issued on December 26, 1956, but, if the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear appellant’s petition for naturalization, it follows necessarily that said decision is null and void, and that so are, accordingly, the oath of allegiance taken and the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto. Pomeroy v. Director of Prisons, L-11284-85 (February 24, 1960), cited by appellant is not in point, for that case specifically limited its effect to final judgment which are valid, although tainted with an error that "in no wise affected the jurisdiction of the court . . . to render it"
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
