IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOSE MARIA CARLOS TARRAGA BULL ZABALETA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  JOSE MARIA CARLOS TARRAGA BULL ZABALETA, PETITIONER-APPELL…

Appeal by the Republic from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental in Civil Case No.276
granting the petition of Jose Maria Carlos Tarraga Bull Za­baleta, a citizen
of Spain, to be
admitted a citizen of the Philippines.

We are of the opinion that the lower court erred in granting the
petition in view of the fact that the peti­tion was fatally defective in that
it failed to comply with the requirement in Section 7 of the Revised Natu­ralization
Law that the petitioner should state in his petition his “present and
former places of residence.” Petitioner alleged in his petition “that
his present place of residence is San Carlos City,
Philippines, having
stayed in said place since his transfer two years ago from Manila,
his former place of residence.” In the following cases the petition was
held fatally defective because it did not state the present and all the former
places of residence of the petitioner even though in the same city:  Chi vs. Republic, L-18207, June 20, 1966,
where the petition alleged that petitioner’s present place of residence was at
1028-G Benavides St., Manila, but failed to state that he had formerly resided
at 1078 Padre Algue St., Manila; Wayne Chang vs.
Repub­lic, L-20713, April 29, 1966, where the petition alleged that petitioner
resided at 270 P. Casal St., San Miguel, Manila, but
failed to state that he had also resided at 1242-A Abreu
St., 1950 Arellano St., 747 Padilla St. and 242 P. Casal
St., Manila; Go vs. Republic, L-20558, March 31, 1965, where the petition
alleged that petitioner’s former place of residence was at 465 Tanduay St., Manila, but failed to state that petitioner
had also resided at 250 T. Pinpin St., Manila; Gaw Ching vs. Republic, L-19419,
September 30, 1964, where the petition alleged that peti­tioner’s present place
of residence was at 599 Asuncion St., Manila, but omitted mention of the fact
that petitioner had also resided at 512 Asuncion St., Manila; and Ngo vs.
Republic, L-18319, May 31, 1963, where the petition alleged that petitioner
resided at 505 Magdalena St., Manila, but failed to state that petitioner had
previously resided at 528 T. Pinpin St. and Magdalena
St., Manila.  In these cases it was also
held, in effect, that the failure of the petition to give specific addresses of
the present and former places of residence of the petitioner even if in the
same city did not confer jurisdiction upon the court.

In the case of Koa Heng vs. Republic,
L-21079, February 28, 1966,
this Court said:

“* * * It is settled that failure of the pe­titioner to
specify in his petition all the differ­ent places of his residence in this
country, as re­quired by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, is a
serious flaw which results in the denial of his petition for
naturalization.  The reason be­hind the
requirement is to facilitate the checking on the different activities of
petitioner bearing on his petition for naturalization, especially as to his
qualifications and moral character, either by private individuals or government
agencies, by indicating to them the localities or places in which to make
appropriate inquiries or investiga­tions. 
* * *.”

To the same effect did this Court hold in
Cheng vs. Repub­lic, L-20013, March
30, 1965; Ng vs. Republic, L-19646, May 31, 1965; Yu Ti vs. Republic, L-19913, June 23, 1965; Chan Kiat Huat vs. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966; and Dy vs. Republic, L-20152, February 28, 1966.

We hereby expressly rule that the requirement in Section 7 of the
Revised Naturalization Law that the petitioner shall state in his petition his
“present and former places of resi­dence” means that in a city or
town where the streets have names and the buildings are numbered, the petition
must state the present place of residence of petitioner by giving the name of
the street and the number of the building thereon, and his former places of
residence, by giving the names of all the streets and the numbers of all the
buildings thereon where he had resided. 
In case of towns or barrios where streets have names but the buildings
thereon are not numbered, the present residence of petitioner shall be stated
by giv­ing the name of the street and the location thereon of the building
where he is residing; and his former places of re­sidence shall be stated by
giving the names of all the streets and the locations thereon of all the
buildings where he had resided.

Having reached the conclusion that the judgment of the lower
court should be reversed on the ground that the peti­tion was fatally defective,
we deem it unnecessary to take up other apparent grounds for reversal.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment appealed from is
reversed and the instant petition for naturalization is denied.  Without special
pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ.,
concur.

Dizon, J., did not take part.