1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; CANCELATION OF NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED. — The applicant has not established that because he was born in Hyderabad, he was entitled to become a citizen of the United States ii he were resident therein. On the other hand, it has been proven that the natives of said city fall within the exclusion established by section 3 of the Act of Congress of February 6, 1917. If the applicant had no right to enter and reside in the United States it follows that he had likewise no right to become a Filipino citizen. In affirming under oath that he had all the qualifications to obtain naturalization certificate and that he was not disqualified to acquire Philippine citizenship, it being a fact that he did not have all the qualifications and he was disqualified, he led the court to commit an error of law and he obtained his naturalization certificate fraudulently (Bell v. Attorney-General, 56 Phil., 667).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ACT NO. 2927. — Under section 14 of Act No. 2927, the naturalization certificate may be set aside if shown to have been obtained fraudulently. The inquiry, therefore, is whether the Government has shown that the applicant obtained his naturalization certificate fraudulently. It is a fact that at the trial of the petition for cancellation the parties did not adduce any evidence; but it is contended that the place of birth of the applicant clearly shows that he had no right to be naturalized and that he deliberately concealed this disqualification from the court, thereby fraudulently obtaining his naturalization certificate.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE. — The applicant insists on his contention that the decree of naturalization cannot be annulled upon the petition filed by the Solicitor-General, but through a separate and independent action If the case were really a petition to annul the decree of naturalization rendered in favor of the applicant, there is no doubt that the error assigned was committed, because the annulment of the said decree should be obtained by the commencement of an ordinary and separate civil action. However, the petition filed by the Solicitor-General was, at bottom, for the cancellation of the naturalization certificate issued by the court in favor of the applicant and this procedure is authorized by section 14 and the naturalization certificate issued.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES. — It is finally alleged that the Philippine citizenship of the applicant cannot now be questioned because section 1, subsection (1), of Article IV of the Constitution provides that citizens of the Philippines are, among others, those who are so at the time of its adoption. We find no merit in the contention. The Constitution has not repealed Section 14 of Act No. 2927 which recognizes the right of the Government to ask for the cancellation of a naturalization certificate which has been fraudulently obtained, as in the case of the applicant, and the cancellation of a naturalization certificate does not go against or trench upon the cited Constitutional provision. The right to cancel a naturalization certificate obtained fraudulently still subsists notwithstanding the promulgation of the Constitution, and it is reaffirmed by section 1 subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 63 in providing that Philippine citizenship is lost, among other ways, by the cancellation of the naturalization certificate.

On February 5, 1923 Rafael Jalandoni Gurbuxani filed an application in the Court of First Instance of Misamis asking that he be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. In the sworn application presented he alleged: that he was born in Hyderabad Sind, India, on January 10, 1899; that he was married to Carmelina Fernan, born in Bugo, Cebu, with whom he had a child named Parpati Gurbuxani, born on April 29, 1922; that he emigrated to the Philippines from Bombay, India, on November 13, 1916, reaching the Port of Manila on board the ship Tamming; that he had all the qualifications required by Act No. 2927; that he was not disqualified under the said law to become a Filipino citizen; and that he renounced his English citizenship and that he was willing to take the oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government and to that of the United States. The application was opposed by the Government represented by the Provincial Fiscal, on the ground that the applicant, being a native of India of the continent of Asia, was not entitled to be naturalized as a Filipino. After trial court rendered a judgment on November 22, 1923, decreeing the naturalization of the applicant and ordering that, after thirty days from notice of the decision to the parties, the clerk of court issue a certificate of naturalization in favor of the applicant in accordance with section 10 of Act No. 2927. The decision became final because it was not appealed and on October 21, 1924, the applicant took the oath of allegiance and on the same date the clerk of court issued to him the naturalization certificate. On July 8, 1933, about ten years after the applicant received the naturalization certificate, the Solicitor-General, on behalf of the Government, moved in the same case for the setting aside of the decision rendered therein decreeing the naturalization of the applicant and for the cancellation of the naturalization certificate issued in his favor. At the trial of the motion the applicant objected thereto and alleged as grounds: that the nullity of the decree of naturalization cannot be entertained in the same case but through a separate action; that his political status as a Filipino citizen is res judicate; and that any defect of his citizenship was cured by the Constitution of the Philippines which considers him as a citizen of this country.

After trial, the court entered its order of December 15, 1937 wherein it held null and without effect the decision or decree of naturalization of November 22, 1933, and ordered the applicant within ten days to return to the clerk of court the naturalization certificate which he received. From this order the applicant appealed.

In his first assignment of error the applicant insists on his contention of the decree of naturalization cannot be annulled upon the petition filed by the Solicitor-General but through a separate and independent action. If the case were really a petition to annul the decree of naturalization rendered in favor of the applicant, there is no doubt that the error assigned was committed, because the annulment of the said decree should be obtained by the commencement of an ordinary and separate civil action. However, the petition filed by the Solicitor-General, was, at bottom, for the cancellation of the naturalization certificate issued by the court in favor of the applicant and this procedure is authorized by section 14 of Act No. 2927 in the same case where the decree was entered and the naturalization certificate issued. The error assigned, is, therefore, without merit.

The applicant contends in this second assignment of error that the court erred in holding that the decision or decree of November 22, 1923 is null and void because it was issued without jurisdiction. The court in fact held that the decision decreeing the naturalization of the applicant is null and void because it was rendered by the court without having acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter. We believe, however, that the real question raised is not whether the decision or decree is valid, but whether the naturalization certificate may be cancelled through the procedure prescribed by law. Under section 14 of Act No. 2927, the naturalization certificate may be set aside if shown to have been obtained fraudulently. The inquiry, therefore, is whether the Government has shown that the applicant obtained his naturalization certificate fraudulently. It is a fact that at the trial of the petition for cancellation the parties did not adduce any evidence; but it is contended that the place of birth of the applicant clearly shows that he had no right to be naturalized and that he deliberately concealed this disqualification from the court, thereby fraudulently obtaining his naturalization certificate.

The applicant bases his right to obtain Philippine citizenship upon subsection (c) of section 1 of Act No. 2927 providing that an alien who may become a citizen of the United States if residing therein, may acquire Philippine citizenship. In his sworn application the applicant stated that he was born in Hyderabad, India, and impliedly alleged that if he had resided in the United States he would have been entitled to become a citizen thereof under the existing laws. The Act of Congress of the United States of February 5, 1917, which was extended to the Philippines by express provision thereof, names the aliens who may enter and reside in territories under its jurisdiction. Section 3 of said Act provides that there shall be excluded from admission into the United States, among others, "natives of any country, province, or dependency situate on the Continent of Asia west of the one hundred and tenth meridian of longitude east from Green which and east of the fiftieth meridian of longitude east from Greenwich and south of the fiftieth parallel of latitude north, except that portion of said territory situate between the fiftieth and the sixty-fourth meridians of longitude east from Greenwich and the twenty-fourth and thirty-eighth parallels of latitude north, . . .

We have looked up the Encyclopedia Britannica where the map of Asia is found, Vol. II, between pages 736 and 737,1910 edition, and we have found that the city of Hyderabad is not found within the continent of Asia situate between the fiftieth and the sixty-fourth meridians of longitude east from Greenwich and the twenty-fourth and thirty-eighth parallels of latitude north, the natives of which are exempted by section 3 from exclusion. In the Encyclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo Americana de Espasa-Calpe, S. A., Vol. 28, pages 785 and 786, Hyderabad is described as a city of India, capital of an Indian state of the same name, situated on the bank of the Musi River, at 17