IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. COSME GO TIAN AN ALIAS ANA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND AP…

Before us is the appeal interposed by the Provincial
Fiscal of Cebu, in representation of the Solicitor General, from the
order of September 18, 1961 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu in
civil case 395, authorizing the petitioner Cosme Go Tian An alias Ana
to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen and ordering the
issuance to him of a certificate of naturalization.

The antecedent facts are not disputed. On November
13, 1958 the petitioner filed a petition for naturalization with the
Court of First Instance of Cebu. After appropriate proceedings, the
court rendered a decision on August 12, 1959, granting him Philippine
citizenship. More than two years later he filed a motion for final
proceedings as required by law. ^[1]
Thereafter the court issued the questioned order of September 18, 1961,
allowing the petitioner to take the oath of allegiance and ordering the
issuance to him of a certificate of naturalization. On the same day the
petitioner took his oath and received his certificate of naturalization.

On November 7, 1961, the Provincial Fiscal filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of September 18, 1961, to
secure the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization issued to
the petitioner on the ground that the latter had illegally used alias
names in violation of the Anti-Alias Law. ^[2]This
motion was opposed by the petitioner, who challenged the Fiscal’s right
to raise this question after he had taken his oath of allegiance and a
certificate of naturalization had been issued to him.

The motion was set for hearing, and evidence was received. The court a quo thereafter overruled the motion on the ground that the Fiscal had failed to interpose the matter of aliases
at the original hearing on the petition nor yet at the final
proceedings had pursuant to Republic Act 530, at the same time
declaring that the petitioner’s actuations do not violate Commonwealth
Act 142.

Hence this appeal by the Republic.

May the petitioner’s certificate of naturalization be cancelled?

The appellee’s main argument, advanced with some vehemence, is that the matter of his citizenship is res judicata
and that the Government is estopped to question his status as a citizen
upon any issue which could have been raised prior to the issuance to
him of a certificate of naturalization. This argument has before been
ventilated in this highest judicial forum of the land, and has been
rejected without hesitation. For indeed the doctrine of estoppel or of
laches does not apply when the government sues as Sovereign or asserts
governmental rights. Nor can estoppel validate an act that contravenes
law or public policy. Moreover a naturalization proceeding is not a
judicial adversary proceeding; the decision rendered therein is not res judicata
as to any matter that would support a judgment cancelling a certificate
of naturalization on the ground of illegal or fraudulent procurement
thereof. ^[3] A certificate
of naturalization may be cancelled if it is discovered subsequently
that the applicant therefor obtained it by misleading the court upon
any material fact. ^[4] Law
and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of
naturalization upon grounds or conditions arising subsequent to the
granting of the certificate. ^[5]

We are asked by the Solicitor General to direct the
cancellation of the appellee’s certificate of naturalization, because
the latter (1) has used alias names without judicial authority, in violation of Commonwealth Act 142, and (2) has really never had any lucrative employment.

Upon the first point, the petitioner adduced proof that he was named Cosme Go Tian An alias
Ana at birth by his parents; that when he started schooling he was
enrolled as Cosme D. Go by his parents; that he has never used his name
and alias interchangeably in his business and social dealings; and that his use of such alias
has not in any way caused confusion among his friends and associates.
The record conclusively proves, however, that the appellee has been
using at least three names; Cosme Go Tian An alias Ana, Go Tian
An, and Cosme Go or Cosme D. Go (the letter “D” represents the surname
“Dy” of his mother). He was known as Go Tian An during his entire
schooling at the Cebu Chinese High School (exh. L); he used the name
Cosme D. Go at the University of San Carlos (exh. M) and later at the
University of the East (exh. N). His 1950 alien certificate of
registration (exh. F) shows his name as Cosme Go Tian An; the name
Cosme Go Tian An and Ana appears in his 1948 immigrant certificate of
residence (exh. G). He used the name Cosme Go in the “record of annual
report in person of alien” (exh. F-2). To blunt the force of the
Government’s contention that in using three different names, he has
thus infringed on section 1 of Commonwealth Act 142 which provides,
“Except as a pseudonym for literary purposes, no person shall use any
name different from the one with which he was christened or by which he
has been known since childhood, or such substitute name as may have
been authorized by a competent court,” the appellee avers that he was
baptized Cosme Go before he attained the “age of reason”, and has used
this name since then in his business and social dealings. The record,
however, does not disclose any baptismal certificate or other
satisfactory secondary evidence to support his claim that he was
baptized Cosme Go. And if it is true that he has used this name from
the day of his alleged baptism, why did he enroll in the Cebu Chinese
High School and complete his elementary education thereat under the
name of Go Tian An (Cosme)? Under the environmental circumstances,
there can be no dispute that he has, by omission, likewise violated
section 2 of Commonwealth Act 142 which requires a person “desiring to
use an alias or aliases” “to obtain judicial authority” therefor.
Appellee’s conduct in contravention of law as described above hardly
speaks well of his character or of his fitness to become a Filipino
citizen.

We now address ourselves briefly to the Government’s
insistence that the evidence of record does not prove that the appellee
had or has a lucrative employment. We have painstakingly read the
entire record, and we are of the considered view that the Government’s
position is correct. True that Go Siong Mit, manager of the Go Occo
& Company in Cebu City, certified under oath that the appellee had
been a purchasing agent of the said establishment from 1956 to 1959 at
an annual salary of P3,600 (exh. H), and that the appellee himself
testified at the final proceedings held on September 18, 1961 that his
employment thereat had been uninterrupted, but we cannot accord any
provative value to the said certification of Go Siong Mit and the
testimony of the appellee because they are bare assertions
uncorroborated by any supporting payroll, time record or book of
account of the company, nor by a single copy of any income tax return
which should have been filed each year by the appellee from 1956 to
1961, inclusive, as required by law. We are thus persuaded that the
evidence presented by the appellee proves at best only a token
compliance with the legal requirements on the matter of lucrative
employment.

ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from is set
aside, and the certificate of naturalization issued to the
petitioner-appellee is hereby ordered cancelled, at
petitioner-appellee’s cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., no part.

---

^[1] Republic Act 530.

^[2] Commonwealth Act 142 entitled “An Act To Regulate The Use of Aliases”, approved on November 7, 1936 .

^[3] Republic vs. Go, L-11499, April 29, 1961; sec. 18(a), Commonwealth Act 473.

^[4] Bell vs. Attorney General, 56 Phil. 667.

^[5] Pars. (b), (d) and (e) of Sec. 18 of Commonwealth Act 473; Republic vs. Go, supra.