IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF YAO MUN TEK, YAO MUN TEK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

Yao Mun Tek versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is Yao Mun Tek versus the Republic of the Philippines, a naturalization case decided by the Supreme Court in January 1971. Yao Mun Tek had been granted Philippine citizenship by the Manila Court of First Instance in 1951, and he took his oath of allegiance in 1953. Years later, the Solicitor General moved to nullify that judgment and cancel his certificate of naturalization. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the strict, jurisdictional requirements for naturalization — full publication and posting of the petition, the allegations that must appear on the face of the petition, the rules on substituting character witnesses, the disclosure of previous residences, and the finality of the order allowing the oath — and because it confirms that citizenship is a political privilege that the State may always reclaim.

Procedural History

On January 9, 1951, the Manila Court of First Instance rendered a decision granting Yao Mun Tek's petition for naturalization. On January 26, 1953, the same court issued an order allowing him to take his oath of allegiance and directing the clerk of court to issue the corresponding certificate of naturalization, after finding that he had complied with the provisions of Republic Act Number 530. On that very same day, January 26, 1953, Yao Mun Tek took his oath of allegiance, without waiting for the expiration of thirty days from January 27, 1953, the date the Solicitor General received the order.

On June 18, 1963, the Solicitor General filed a petition to declare the 1951 decision null and void and to cancel the certificate of naturalization. In an order dated May 27, 1964, the Manila Court of First Instance nullified the decision granting Philippine citizenship and cancelled the certificate. Yao Mun Tek's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he interposed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in January 1971.

Facts

On September 14, 1946, Yao Mun Tek filed his application for naturalization, naming Dr. Albino Sycip and Atty. Perfecto Jose as his character witnesses, together with their joint affidavit. The notice of the petition was published in the Official Gazette only once, in the September 1946 issue, and in the Manila Post on September 18, September 25, and October 2, 1946. The notice was also posted on the bulletin board of the Manila court. But the notice as posted and published omitted paragraphs 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the petition — the paragraphs stating his qualifications under the law, his belief in the principles underlying the Constitution, his proper and irreproachable conduct, his social mingling with Filipinos, and his intention in good faith to renounce all allegiance to China. The petition itself did not expressly allege that he is of good moral character and that he is not suffering from mental alienation.

On July 18, 1950, Yao Mun Tek moved to substitute Atty. Marcelo P. Karaan for Dr. Albino Sycip as character witness, on the ground that Dr. Sycip could not attend the hearing due to pressure of work. The motion was granted because there was no objection, but the petition was never amended, and no amended petition was ever published or posted. Both character witnesses were in fact alive.

His records also showed previous residences that the petition did not state: 666 Ilaya, Tondo, Manila, and 1051 Aceyteros, Manila. Finally, he took his oath of allegiance on January 26, 1953, the same day the order allowing it was issued, before that order had become final.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure to publish and post the petition in its entirety, paragraphs 7, 8, 10, and 11 having been omitted, is fatal to the validity of the naturalization proceedings.
• Whether or not the petition is defective for failing to allege that the petitioner is of good moral character and is not suffering from mental alienation.
• Whether or not the substitution of a character witness, without amending the petition and without publishing the amended petition, invalidates the proceedings.
• Whether or not the failure to state the petitioner's previous residences in his petition is a fatal defect.
• Whether or not the oath of allegiance taken on the same day the order allowing it was issued, before the order had become final, is valid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, governs the publication and posting of the petition, and the Court holds that it must be strictly and fully complied with because it is jurisdictional:

The requirement of Section 9 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 that a copy of the petition shall be published and posted must be strictly and fully complied with, for the same is jurisdictional.

Sections 2 and 4, in relation to Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, require the petition to allege the petitioner's good moral character and that he is not suffering from mental alienation, and the Court treats the omission as a serious infirmity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the omission of paragraphs 7, 8, 10, and 11 from the published and posted notice is fatal to the validity of the petition, because the requirement of Section 9 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 that a copy of the petition shall be published and posted must be strictly and fully complied with, for the same is jurisdictional.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition's failure to allege that the petitioner is of good moral character and that he is not suffering from mental alienation, as directed by Sections 2 and 4 in relation to Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, is a serious infirmity that cannot be disregarded.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petition should have been amended to substitute Atty. Marcelo Karaan for Dr. Albino Sycip, and that the amended petition should have been posted and published. The death of one character witness may justify substitution, but not where both character witnesses are alive, as here. The purpose of naming the character witnesses in the petition and in the notice is to let the government ascertain whether they are Filipino citizens, whether they are credible, and whether they have personal knowledge of the petitioner during the required period of residence.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petition's failure to state his previous residences at 666 Ilaya, Tondo, Manila and at 1051 Aceyteros, Manila is a defect that nullifies the proceedings.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the oath of allegiance taken on January 26, 1953, immediately after the order allowing it was issued on the same day, is null and void, because the order was not yet final — the thirty-day period within which the government may appeal from its receipt by the Solicitor General on January 27, 1953 had not yet elapsed.

The Court also laid down the threshold principle that a judgment directing the issuance of a certificate of naturalization is a mere grant of political privilege, and that neither estoppel nor res judicata — the bar of a prior judgment — may be invoked to stop the State from cancelling or nullifying the certificate.

Doctrine

First, the requirement that the notice of hearing in a naturalization case be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation is jurisdictional, and non-compliance renders all the proceedings null and void. Second, the petition must be published and posted in its entirety; the omission of material paragraphs is fatal. Third, the petition must expressly allege good moral character and freedom from mental alienation. Fourth, a character witness may be substituted without amendment and republication only when the witness has died, not when both witnesses are alive. Fifth, the petition must state all previous residences. Sixth, the oath of allegiance may be taken only after the order allowing it has become final. Throughout, citizenship is a political privilege, and neither estoppel nor res judicata bars the State from reclaiming it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, declaring null and void and cancelling the 1951 judgment granting naturalization, the 1953 order allowing the oath, the oath of allegiance, and the certificate of naturalization, with costs against Yao Mun Tek.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the publication and posting of the naturalization petition is jurisdictional and must be strict and complete. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of naturalization, the rule on substituting character witnesses, and the principle that citizenship, being a political privilege, is never shielded by res judicata.