IN THE MATTERS OF THE PETITION OF CESAR GUY TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MOVANT-APPELLEE, VS. CESAR GUY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Republic versus Guy

The Case

This is the case of Republic versus Guy, decided by the Supreme Court in July 1982. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, moved to cancel the certificate of naturalization issued to Cesar Guy; Guy resisted and appealed. The case matters because it teaches two enduring rules of naturalization law: first, that a judgment granting citizenship is never truly final against the State, and may be cancelled for causes arising even after the certificate is issued; and second, that administering the oath of allegiance on the very day the court allows it, before the Government's appeal period expires, is null and void.

Procedural History

Cesar Guy filed his petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch. The court gave the petition due course, heard it, and granted the application. About two years later, the same court issued an order allowing Guy to take his oath of allegiance; he took the oath that same day and was issued his certificate of naturalization.

Later, the Solicitor General filed a petition with the same trial court to cancel the certificate, on the ground that it had been obtained fraudulently or illegally. After protracted proceedings in which Guy's counsel repeatedly failed to present evidence, the trial court ordered the certificate cancelled. Guy's motions to set aside that order and for reconsideration were both denied. Guy then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court.

Facts

On August 18, 1956, Cesar Guy, then residing in Barrio Sumulong, Calauag, Quezon, filed a petition to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The Court of First Instance of Quezon granted the application on June 19, 1957. On December 22, 1959, the same court issued an order allowing Guy to take his oath of allegiance; he took the oath that very day and received Certificate of Naturalization Number 27.

Unknown to the court at the time of its judgment, however, Guy had filed a sworn application for an ordinary timber license with the Bureau of Forestry on June 7, 1957, while his naturalization petition was still pending, stating therein that he was a Filipino citizen although he was not. For this he was charged with, and convicted of, perjury. He was also convicted of rape with serious physical injuries. Both convictions became final.

On September 23, 1964, the Solicitor General petitioned for cancellation of the certificate, citing these convictions as proof that Guy lacked good moral character. The Solicitor General later added the ground that the oath had been administered before the Government's period to appeal had expired. Throughout the proceedings, Guy's counsel repeatedly sought postponements and failed to appear, despite warnings, until the trial court considered the case submitted for decision and cancelled the certificate. Guy appealed, insisting he had been deprived of his day in court and that his convictions, coming after he had already become a citizen, could no longer affect his status.

Issues

• Whether or not Cesar Guy was deprived of his right to be heard and to present evidence when the trial court cancelled his certificate of naturalization.
• Whether or not the certificate of naturalization may be cancelled on the ground of convictions for perjury and rape with serious physical injuries suffered after the grant of citizenship and after the probationary period.
• Whether or not the oath of allegiance administered on the same day the court authorized it, before the Government's appeal period had lapsed, was valid.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on the effects of taking the oath of allegiance under the naturalization law, as quoted in the Court's discussion of the Ong So case:

Republic Act No. 530 contemplates that the applicant for naturalization become entitled to all the privileges of citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance, and the precipitate administration of the oath in the present case appears to be an attempt to render nugatory the Government's appeal.

This provision bears on the case because it fixes the moment citizenship is acquired, and thus exposes the premature oath-taking as an attempt to defeat the State's right to appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Guy was not deprived of his day in court. The record showed that his counsel had been given every opportunity to present evidence, that hearings were reset repeatedly at his own request, and that the trial court had even admitted his amended answer for the sake of equity and fair play. His failure to present evidence was his own doing, and the trial court had been very lenient with him.

On the second issue, the Court held that the convictions, though final only after the grant of citizenship, still warranted cancellation. A decision granting citizenship does not become truly executory, and a naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, so the judgment is not res judicata as to matters that would support cancellation of the certificate for illegal or fraudulent procurement. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

unlike final decisions in actions and other proceedings in court, a decision or order granting citizenship to the applicant does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters which would support a judgment canceling the certificate of naturalization for illegal or fraudulent procurement.

The Court stressed that perjury involves moral turpitude, and a person convicted of it cannot be said to possess good moral character, an indispensable requirement for citizenship. Having committed perjury during the pendency of his petition, Guy obtained his citizenship fraudulently or illegally.

On the third issue, the Court held that the oath was null and void, because it was administered on the very day the order allowing it was issued, without giving the Government a chance to appeal. The Court quoted Ong So versus Republic with approval:

It being unnecessary to discuss the other objections of the state's attorneys, the appealed order allowing the applicant-appellee, Ong So, to take the oath of allegiance, as well as the oath administered pursuant thereto and the corresponding certificate of citizenship issued, if any, are declared null and void.

Doctrine

A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions subsequent to its issuance. A judgment granting citizenship is not res judicata as to the reasons or matters that would support cancellation for illegal or fraudulent procurement, because a naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding. Perjury involves moral turpitude, and a conviction for it, even after the grant of citizenship, shows a lack of good moral character and renders the acquisition of citizenship fraudulent or illegal. Finally, the oath of allegiance must not be administered before the Government's period to appeal from the order allowing it has expired; an oath taken prematurely is null and void.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, with costs against Cesar Guy.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a grant of citizenship is never final against the State, and an oath taken before the Government's appeal period lapses is void. Examiners use this case to test the non-finality of naturalization judgments and the Ong So rule on premature oath-taking.