PETITION FOR THE REISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION AS FILIPINO CITIZEN. PROCOPY MOSCAL, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPEL…

On February 12, 1953, Procopy Moscal filed a petition in the lower court “for
the reissuance of a certificate of naturalization as Filipino citizen” to him,
upon the ground that his certificate of naturalization was lost during the last
world war. The Provincial Fiscal of Lanao objected to said petition upon the
ground that there was ho basis upon which the court could order the reissuance
of the alleged certificate of naturalization. After due trial, the lower court
denied the petition, without costs from which decision the present appeal was
taken.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred firstly, in denying his
petition due to his failure to produce the original or a copy of the judicial
record in which he was granted letters of citizenship, and secondly, in holding
that under the old naturalization law, Act No. 2927, he was not entitled to
Philippine citizenship.

Appellant testified that he was formerly a Russian subject and came to the
Philippines for the first time in 1923; that he established his residence in
Lanao in 1928; that sometime in 1934 he filed in the Court of First Instance of
Lanao a petition for naturalization and that, after due proceedings, the court
granted his petition; that subsequently-sometime during the first week of March,
1935 -he took his oath of allegiance, and two weeks later the corresponding
certificate of naturalization was issued to him by the then Clerk of Court
Valentin Daligcon; that since then he had exercised some of the rights
pertaining to Filipino citizens; that during the last war, he evacuated with his
family to Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, where he lost his certificate of
naturalization; that after the war his efforts to secure a copy thereof from the
Court of Firat Instance of Lanao were in vain because the records of the latter
were destroyed during said war; that the office of the Solicitor General also
informed him that all the prewar records of said office had been lost, and that
when he went to see Justice Felix Martinez of the Court of Appeals, who had
heard and decided his petition for citizenship, the latter failed to recognize
him and told him that he had no recollection regarding his application for
naturalization’.

Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by that of Atty. Pablo Padilla, who
claimed to have been his counsel in the proceedings for naturalization, and by
Valentin Daligcon, the Acting Clerk of Court of Lanao at the time of the alleged
hearing and adjudication thereof.

While the testimonial evidence referred to above seems to be impressive, it
must be noted that appellant was not able to produce any reliable document in
support of his contention other than a copy of the publication of the notice of
hearing now marked Exhibit “C”.

The lower court, in our opinion, correctly considered appellant’s petition as
one for the reconstitution of the record of the naturalization proceedings and
of the certificate of naturalization allegedly issued to him as a result
thereof. It appears in this connection that the period for the reconstitution of
judicial records expired on June 30 1947(42 Off. Gaz. No. 10, 2446)-long before
the petition before us was filed.

Upon the other hand, if appellant’s petition is to be considered not as one
for the reconstitution of a judicial record but only for the reissuance of his
alleged lost certificate of naturalization, it seems clear that the evidence
presented by him in support thereof is utterly insufficient and unsatisfactory.
To order the issuance of another certificate of naturalization to appellant on
the basis of almost exclusively oral evidence of the nature of what we have
before us, would establish a dangerous precedent and would throw the door wide
open for the commission of Iraud against the State. At any rate, His Honor, the
trial judge-who heard the petition and the testimony of witnesses who testified
in support thereof-found their collective testimony as insufficient for the
granting of the relief sought by appellant. A careful review of the record has
not disclosed any fact or circumstance of sufficient weight and importance to
justify a reversal of such finding.

The question of whether or not under the old naturalization law applicant was
eligible for Philippine citizenship is not directly involved in the present
petition; hence, we pass it now sub silentio.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon., Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David and Paredes, JJ.,
concur.

Judgment affirmed.