IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JUANITA PO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  JUANITA PO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Government
from an order of the Court of First Instance of Surigao
del Norte.

Judgment having been
rendered by said court, on March 11, 1964, granting the petition of appellee Juanita Po for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines, on April 15, 1966, she filed a motion to be allowed to take
the requisite oath of allegiance, after the notice and hearing prescribed by
law therefor. 
In due course, said court issued, on November 14, 1966, the appealed order allowing her to take
said oath and directing the issuance, in her favor, of the corresponding
certificate of naturalization.  His
motion for re­consideration of said order having been denied, the Solicitor
General brought the case to Us, by record on appeal, upon the ground that the
lower court:  (1) had no jurisdiction to
entertain appellee’s petition for naturalization
because (a) she had failed to file a declaration of intention, although not
exempt therefrom, (b) the petition was not published
in accordance with law, and (c) is fatally defective; and (2) had erred in
issuing the order appealed from, inasmuch as (a) the appellee
has “no lucrative income,” (b) there are indicia derogatory to her
moral character, (c) her character witnesses are not sufficiently qualified therefor, and (d) it has not been duty established that the
Chinese government had permitted her to give up her Chinese nationality.

As regards the
jurisdiction of the lower court, it appears that, in her petition for
naturalization, appellee claimed to be exempt from the
requirement of making a declaration of intention, upon the ground that she had
been born in the Philippines “and received my primary education in the
City of Manila and secondary education in San Nicolas College in Surigao, Surigao del Norte,
Philippines, and my college education in the University of Sto.
Tomas, Manila, private institutions which are not limited to any race or nation
or nationality and duly recognized by the Govern­ment of the Philippines where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of
the school curriculum.” It should be noted that the school in which she
received her primary education in Manila
was not named in her petition for naturaliza­tion.  Neither is said school identified in the
decision of the lower court.  In short,
the records do not show that she took her primary education in a school
“recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality,” a condition essential to the exemption from filing a
declaration of intention, which, accordingly, she can not invoke.^[1]
It is well settled that failure to file said declaration is fatal to the
application for naturalization.^[2]

Moreover, section 9 of Com. Act No. 473 requires that the
“petition” for naturalization be published “in the Official
Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province
where the petitioner resides x x x.” In the case at bar, what was published was not
appellee’s “petition” for naturalization,
but a “notice” summarizing the allegations of said pleading.  The publication of such notice is
insufficient to vest, in the trial court, jurisdiction to hear and decide this
case.  Besides, said notice was published
in the “Nueva Era,” and the records do not
show that this newspaper is of general circulation in Surigao
del Norte, the province in which the appellee
resides.^[3]

Inasmuch as appellee has not filed the
declaration of intention, required in section 5 of Com. Act No. 473, as amended
by Com. Act No. 535, from which requirement she does not appear to be exempt,^[4]
and her petition for naturalization has not been published, in violation of
section 9 of said Act, the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain and
hear said petition, much less to grant the same.^[5]
Consequently, its decision, rendered on March
11, 1964, and the order appealed from are invalid, as well as null
and void ab initio,
and it is unnecessary for Us to pass upon the other issues raised by the
Solicitor General.

WHEREFORE, said decision and the order appealed from
should be, as they are hereby declared null and void ab
initio, and the petition for naturalization of
appellee Juanita Po is dismissed with costs against
her.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Dizon, Ruiz Castro, Teehankee, and Makasiar, JJ., took no
part.

^[1]
Po Chu King v. Republic, L-20810, May 16,
1967; Ting v. Republic, L-13896, Aug. 10, 1966; Uy
Chin Hong v. Republic, L-21219, May 20, 1966; Lim v. Republic,
L-20804, Jan. 22, 1966; Lim Cho Kuan
v. Republic, L-21198, Jan. 22, 1966; Yap v. Repub­lic, L-12938,
July 31, 1961.

^[2]
Yap v. Republic, supra; Ong Khan
v. Republic, 109 Phil. 855; Tan v. Republic, 94 Phil. 882; Yu v.
Republic, 92 Phil. 804; Yu v. Republic, L-3808, July 29, 1952.

^[3] Yap
v. Republic, L-23656, May 15,
1967; Dy v. Republic, L-20709, April 29, 1966; Tan Ten Koc v. Republic, L-18344, Feb. 28, 1964.

^[4] Ng
v. Republic, L-26242, Oct. 25,
1968; Lim v. Repub­lic, supra; Yap
v. Republic, L-12938, July 31,
1961.

^[5] Sio Kim v. Republic, L-20415, Dec. 29, 1965; Quinga Chua v. Republic, L-19695, Oct. 31, 1964; Tan
Ten Koc v. Republic, supra; Co v.
Republic, 104 Phil. 889; Ong Khan v. Republic,
supra; Tan v. Republic, supra: Yu v.
Republic, supra.