IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES: SAJNANI DAYAL CHOITHRAM, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This “Motion for Reconsideration”^[1] questions the Court’s Decision dated March 27, 2013 setting aside the March 18, 2009 Decision and March 22, 2011 Order of the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch No. 8, Dipolog City, in Naturalization Case No. N-04.^[2]

In the Decision sought to be reconsidered, this Court denied appellee Sajnani Dayal Choithram’s petition for naturalization and cancelled his certificate of naturalization. The Court reasoned that appellee failed “to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the Naturalization Law” upon finding that appellee failed: 1) “to adduce, much less, attach to his petition the certificate of arrival”; 2) to prove that he is not disqualified for naturalization under Sec. 4 of C.A. 473, specifically the provision that he must not be “suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases”; 3) and “to establish clearly the fact of his marriage and the identity of his spouse.” This Court also ruled that it cannot consider as evidence for the appellee the documents he submitted on appeal as they have been filed belatedly and are mere photocopies of the original documents. However, the Court stressed that appellee “may file a new petition for naturalization since the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata.” ^[3]

Appellee assails the ruling by arguing mainly that: 1) his passport suffices as a proof of lawful admission; 2) proof on the absence of mental alienation or incurable contagious disease “does not literally and exclusively mean a possession of a medical certificate”; and 3) his two (2) witnesses testified on his mental fitness and medical condition.^[4]

The motion lacks merit.

The Court has amply addressed the issues brought to the fore in this motion. Appellee’s contentions are mere rehash of the matters extensively discussed in the decision sought to be reconsidered. This motion, thus, fails to raise new matters compelling enough for the Court to reverse or modify its earlier ruling.

ACCORDINGLY, this Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Badelles and Inting, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 99-106.

^[2] Id., pp. 80-96.

^[3] Id., pp. 86-93.

^[4] Id., p. 102.