IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FRANCISCO CO KENG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MOVANT-APPELLANT, VS. FRANCISCO CO KENG, RESPONDENT-…

Before this Court for
resolution is respondent-appellee’s supplementary
second motion for reconsideration dated June 27, 1968.

It may be recalled that
the instant proceeding started when the Solicitor General, in behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on
March 7, 1961 a petition for denaturalization of respondent-appellee,
who had taken his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen on December 29,
1958 pursuant to the decision of the said court dated October 31, 1956, granting his petition for
naturalization.  One of the
grounds alleged by the Solicitor General was that respondent had obtained his
certificate of naturalization fraudulently by stating in his application that
he was a resident of Manila when actually he was residing at No. 28, 12th
Street (Broadway), Quezon City.  In essence this ground questioned the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the naturalization
proceeding.  Another ground was that
respondent had been guilty of tax evasion and habitual concealment of his
taxable income.

The petition for
denaturalization was denied by the Court of First Instance, and
petitioner appealed to this Court.  On July 30, 1966 this Court reversed the
said decision and ordered respondent’s certificate of naturalization
revoked.  Upon motion for reconsideration
this Court, in its resolution dated May 4, 1968, found that in the light of a
memorandum submitted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the Solicitor
General and presented to this Court in connection with said motion, “the
second charge of underdeclarations of his (respondent’s)
income has not been clearly established, and therefore, his denaturalization
cannot be predicated upon said charge.” However, by a divided vote of five
to four, with one abstention, this Court denied the motion for reconsideration
on the ground that respondent-appellee’s
naturalization had been illegally obtained because his application therefor failed to state one of his places of residence,
namely, No. 28 12th street (Broadway), Quezon City,
contrary to the requirements of Section 7 of the Naturalization Law.  It
is this resolution of denial promulgated May
4, 1968, reiterated in another resolution of June 25, 1968, which in effect is the subject of
respondent-appellee’s supplementary second motion for
reconsideration of June 27, 1968.

In his motion respondent-appellee raises a constitutional question and claims that
to denaturalize him for violation of section 7 of the Naturalization Law would
be a denial of due process inasmuch as the petition for that purpose filed in
the Court of First Instance did not allege such ground, but rather that he had
no residence in the City of Manila at all, his residence
being in Quezon City, at the address aforementioned,
at the time of his application.  In other
words, his position is that since the petition for denaturalization was based on non-compliance
with section 8 of the Naturalization Law, according to which an application for
naturalization must be filed in the Court of First Instance of the place of the applicant’s residence for
at least one year preceding the filing of such application, and since the
charge of non-compliance was not true, he having been found to be really a
resident of Manila, precisely at the address stated by him, he should not be
denaturalized on another ground neither alleged nor the subject of evidence at
the trial, namely, failure to state any other places of residence, past and
present, as required by Section 7.

Required to comment on
the point thus raised by respondent-appellee, the
Solicitor General expressed his concurrence from the standpoint of the due
process clause of the Constitution, and submitted respondent-appellee’s supplementary second motion for reconsideration
to the sound discretion of this Court.

On November
15, 1968 this Court
issued the following resolution:

“In L-19829 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Francisco Co Keng), acting on the supplementary second motion for
reconsideration of respondent-appellee dated June 27,
1968 and on the Solicitor General’s answer thereto dated October 4, 1968;
considering the argument of said respondent-appellee,
concurred in by the Solicitor-General, that to denaturalize him for lack of
compliance with Section 7 of the Naturalization Law would constitute a denial
of due process, since the petition for that purpose is based solely on Section
8 of the same law; considering further that the purpose of Section 7, which
requires that an application for naturalization must state the present and
former places of residence of the applicant to enable the public and the investigating
agencies of the government to gather all information available as to the
conduct of an applicant and thus determine whether his behavior at all times
has been irreproachable as required by law; and considering finally that the
said purpose of the law would be sub served in this case by affording the
Solicitor General opportunity to make the necessary investigation on the point and submit his findings to the court, with
notice to and hearing of the respondent-appellee:   as alternatively prayed for in the
aforesaid supplementary second motion for reconsideration, this case is
remanded to the Court of origin, with instructions to the Solicitor General to
make the necessary investigation regarding the conduct and behavior of said
respondent-appellee in Quezon
City, particularly in the vicinity of No. 28, 12th street, Broadway, before and
after the grant of citizenship to him on December 29, 1958, and in the event
such investigation should yield derogatory information which would render him
unfit for citizenship, to file the corresponding amended petition for
denaturalization on that ground, otherwise to file with this Court, within a
reasonable time, a manifestation that no such information is available, so that
the proper action may be taken.”

On December 16, 1968
the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation as follows:

“The undersigned Solicitor General hereby respectfully
manifests that he has complied with the resolution of this Honorable Court of
November 15, 1968 in this case in the following manner:

1.  Shortly after being notified of said resolution,
a panel composed of Assistant Solicitor General Isidro Borromeo,
Solicitors Sumilang Bernardo, Dominador
Quiroz, Salvador Jacob and Adolfo Diaz, the panel in the Office of the
Solicitor General to which the Cokeng case was
assigned under the particular care of Solicitor Sumilang
Bernardo, was instructed to set the investigation of the moral character and
conduct of respondent-appellee required by this
Honorable Court with notice to said party and to have said notice published in
a newspaper of general circulation;

2.  Letters were also addressed to the National
Bureau of Investigation and the Chief of Police of Quezon
City requesting investigation of the same matter;

3.  In the meanwhile, information was secured as
to who have been residing in the neighborhood of 28 12th Street, Quezon City during the material time involved in this case and from whom the
investigating panel could make inquiries about the said moral character and
conduct of respondent-appellee and three persons who
could serve the purpose were requested to make affidavits and to testify at the hearing for
which they were duly served with subpoena;

4.  The above-mentioned panel set the hearing on December 12, 1968 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning and actually held
it as scheduled;

5.  The notice of hearing was actually published
in the Philippines Herald on December 8, 10 and 11, 1968;

6.  At said hearing, the respondent-appellee presented
clearances from the Quezon City Fiscal’s
office, Office of the City Court of Quezon City,
Court of First Instance, Quezon City Branch and the
National Bureau of Investigation;

7.  That the following prominent persons testified at said hearing in
answer to the subpoena served on each of them: Atty. Rosario  L. Planas, of
42 (old number 22), 12th Street, Quezon City; former Congressman Lucas P. Paredes, of 43 (old number 23) 12th Street, Quezon City and former Vice-President of the
Philippine National Bank, Mr. Carlos Sobreviñas
of No. 3 Eight Street, Quezon City;

8.  The report of the panel to the undersigned
Solicitor General shows that no one has appeared with derogatory information
about the respondent–appellee, the said report being hereto attached as Annex A of this manifestation;

9.  That subsequent to the hearing, the
respondent-appellee submitted the clearance of the
police department of Quezon City,
which is hereto attached as Annex B;

10.   Also subsequent to the hearing, the
undersigned received a handwritten letter from Mayor Norberto Amoranto of Quezon
City pertinent to the matter under inquiry, which
letter is attached hereto as Annex C of this manifestation;

11.   From
all the foregoing, it appears that no derogatory information against the
respondent-appellee during the period of his
residence or stay, material to this case, at No. 28 12th Street, Quezon City is available;

WHEREFORE, the above manifestation is respectfully submitted to
this Honorable Court for its consideration in relation to the resolution of November 15, 1968.”

In view of the foregoing report of the Solicitor General it
has become unnecessary to remand this case to the court of origin for the
purpose contemplated in the resolution of this Court of November 15, 1968,
namely, for the Solicitor General to file the corresponding amended petition
for naturalization against respondent-appellee in the
event the investigation regarding his conduct and behavior in Quezon City, before and after the grant of citizenship to
him on December 29, 1958, should yield derogatory information which would
render him unfit for citizenship.  The
reason behind the requirement in Section 7 of the Naturalization Law concerning
the inclusion of an applicant’s present and former places of residence in his
petition for naturalization has been satisfied in this particular case, and
consequently the filing of an amended petition for denaturalization expressly
alleging failure to comply with such requirement would serve no practical
purpose, nor may the Solicitor General
be expected to file such
petition after the investigation conducted by him had yielded negative results.

Wherefore respondent-appellee’s
supplementary second motion for reconsideration is granted; the decision of
this Court of July 20, 1966, and the resolution of May 4, 1968 insofar as it
denies respondent-appellee’s first motion for
reconsideration, and the resolution of June 25, 1968, denying his second motion
for reconsideration, are set aside; and the judgment of the Court a quo
denying appellant’s petition for cancellation of respondent-appellee’s
certificate of naturalization is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Dizon, Zaldivar,
Castro, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ.,
concur.

Concepcion, C.J., took no part.

Reyes, J.B.L., Fernando, Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., did not take part.