IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOVENCION CHI TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOVENCIO CHI, PETITONER AND APPELLE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND A…

The Republic appeals form a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting a petition for naturalization.

The Solicitor General, for the appellant, contends that applicant’s
failure to state in his petition all his former places of residence is
fatal thereto.

Appellant’s contention is well taken.

In his petition for naturalization filed May 23, 1959, applicant
Jovencio Chi stated that his present place of residence is at 1028-G
Benavides, Manila. As his former place of residence he stated the
municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines. In his
testimony, however, the applicant said that from 1952 to 1955 he
resided at 1078 Padre Algue, Manila.

Save only in exceptional cases, such as the situation obtaining in
Pelegrina Tan vs. Republic, L-20710, April 29, 1966, (evacuation during
the war), the settled rule holds true that failure, in good faith or
otherwise, to specify all former places of residence in the petition
for naturalization-even those situated within the same city-is a fatal
defect in said application, not curable by supplying the data at the
trial.^[1]

In the present case, the applicant, who was born on 1 June 1928,
failed to state his place of residence from 1952 to 1955, a duration of
three years, when he was from twenty-four to twenty-seven years of age.
Applicant’s case, is, therefore, altogether different from Pelegrina Tan, supra.
In that case the place not stated in the petition was one where
applicant, at the tender age of fourteen years, was taken by her
parents when they evacuated during the war. The transfer was therefore
held not conceivably very material for purposes of any investigation
that the State might make in order to check on the conduct or
activities of the petitioner therein at the aforementioned tender age.

Appellee would argue that, notwithstanding the omission, the
authorities could have investigated his activities at 1078 Padre Algue,
Manila. For, according to him, said place of residence was noted on his
Alien Certificate of Registration (Exh. F). It will suffice here to
reiterate that the reason Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization law
requires former places of residence to be stated in the petition, is so
that upon its publication, the authorities as well as those among the
public at large who may have anything relevant to say on applicant’s
conduct in his different places of residence, will be accorded the
opportunity to investigate said conduct or to come forward with
pertinent facts thereon.^[2] Said purpose is not satisfied by what appears in the Alien Certificate of Registration.^[3]

It becomes unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by
appellant herein, whether petitioner’s income is lucrative or not, and
so forth.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition for naturalization is hereby denied. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Failure to specify all former places of residence is fatal to the application. Lo vs. Republic, L-15919, May 19, 1961; Ngo vs. Republic, L-18379, May 31, 1963; Go Bon The vs.
Republic, L-16813, December 27, 1963; Dy Pek Long vs. Republic,
L-18758, May 30, 1964; Gaw Ching vs. Republic, L-19419, September 30,
1964; Qua vs. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964; Ong tai vs. Republic, L-19418, December 23, 1964; Ong Ping Seng vs.
Republic, L-19575, February 26, 1965. Failure due to good faith is
equally fatal. Go Bon The vs. Republic, supra. Places not stated found
within same city, in nearby street, as places stated, still omission is
fatal. Go Bon The vs. Republic, supra; Gaw Ching vs. Republic, supra. Cheng vs. Republic, L-20013. March 30, 1965. Said defect can not be cured by the evidence. Lo. vs. Republic, supra; Qua vs. Republic supra; Yu ti vs. Republic. L-19913, June 23, 1965.

^[2] Lo vs.
Republic, supra: “Said facts are required to be stated in the petition
in order that, upon its publication, the public as well as the
investigating agencies of our government may be given the needed
opportunity to be informed thereof and voice their objection, if any,
to petitioner’s desire to become a Filipino citizen.” (Italics supplied)

^[3] Furthermore, contrary
to the assertion, the Alien Certificate of Registration (Exh. F) does
not mention the address at 1078 Padre Algue, Manila.