DIMITRY SUGANOFF, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
granting petitioner Dimitry Suganoff’s petition for reconstitution of
records in Naturalization Case No. 9 of the same court, the Solicitor
General took this present appeal.

On July 30, 1959, petitioner Dimitry Suganoff filed with the
above-mentioned court a petition for reconstitution of citizenship
papers alleging, inter alia, that on January 16, 1930, he was
issued a certificate of Naturalization (Certificate No. 7, File No. 9)
by clerk of Court Manuel Flores of the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur; that on May 4, 1932, he took his oath of allegiance
before the Deputy Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija; that as a result of the last war, all his papers in
connection with his citizenship, as well as all other records were lost
in his possession, and in spite of diligent efforts to locate them,
they could not be found; and that it is to the best interests of
petitioner that said records be reconstituted in the very court which
tried and approved his application for Filipino citizenship, as
according to reliable information all the papers and documents of the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur have also been lost during the
last war.

To this petition, the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur, on
September 18, 1959, filed an objection on the grounds that (1) the
petition was filed out of time; and (2) the attached exhibits
supporting said petition are not authentic copy of a decision.

Issues having been joined, the case was duly tried and, on
September 30, 1959, the court granted petitioner’s petition for
reconstitution, in an order which reads:

“ORDER

“This is a
petition for reconstitution of records in Naturalization Case No. 9 of
this court. Copy of the petition and notice of the hearing were served
upon the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur and the Solicitor General.

“The Provincial Fiscal opposed the petition on the ground that it is
filed out of time and that the documents supporting the petition are
not authentic copies of their original.

“Petitioner
submitted Exh. A-1. This is a copy of the notice of hearing of his
original petition duly certified by the librarian of the Department of
Justice. The notice appeared in Volume XXVII, No. 116, page 3241 of the
Official Gazette for the year 1929. He also presented Exh. B-2 which is
a copy of his certificate of naturalization which was recorded as
Certificate No. 7, File No. 9, by the Clerk of this Court. He further
presented Exh. B-4 which is an application for passport containing his
oath of allegiance duly sworn to before the Clerk of Court of Nueva
Ecija on May 4, 1932. Exhs. B-2 and B-4 are duly certified by the
American Consul from the records of the State Department of the United
States of America which has their originals in its files as they have
been attached to petitioner’s application for passport in the year 1932
(Exh. B)

“From the said documents, it is clear that the
petitioner filed an application for naturalization in Civil Case No. 9
of this Court; that notice of its hearing was duly published in the
Official Gazette; that after hearing of the application, the Court
found that the petitioner possesses all the qualifications necessary to
become a citizen of the Philippines, and that in view of said finding
the Court issued Certificate of Naturalization No. 7, File No. 9, on
January 16, 1930. It is also clear that the petitioner took his oath of
allegiance before the Clerk of Court of Nueva Ecija on May 4, 1932.

“Republic Act 441 cited by the Provincial Fiscal in support of his
contention that the petition was filed out of time is not applicable.
The case for naturalization was not a pending case but one totally
finished and finally decided. Accordingly, the law applicable is Act
No. 3110 under which this petition may yet be filed.

“The
second ground for objection is, likewise, not meritorious because the
documents which are the basis for reconstitution are copies duly
certified by the legal custodian of said record.

“Wherefore,
the records of Naturalization Case No. 9 is hereby ordered
reconstituted with Exh. A-1, B-2, and B-4, among others, as basis for
said reconstitution.

“SO ORDERED.”

From this decision, the present appeal was taken.

The decision appealed from must be reversed. At the outset, it may
be pointed out that petitioner was not reconstituting the decision in
the alleged Naturalization Case No. 7 of the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Norte, but only the Certificate of Naturalization allegedly
issued by the Clerk of said court after said decision. Exhibit A-1 (p.
2, folio of exhibits) merely shows that in the September 26, 1929 issue
of the official Gazette, the notice of petitioner’s petition for
naturalization was published therein. Exhibit B-2 (p. 6, id.) is a photostat of an unsigned copy of petitioner’s Certificate of Naturalization. Exhibit B-4 (p. 8, id.),
likewise mentioned as a basis for reconstitution, is a photostatic copy
of the duplicate of application for passport at the bottom of which
appears an “Oath of Allegiance”, but this oath does not purport to be
the one taken upon assumption of the duties of citizenship, but merely
a requirement in connection with his application for passport. It is
important to note that no one testified to identify the signature
appearing in said Exhibit B-4. In overruling the State’s objection that
the exhibits presented by petitioner are not authentic copies
of their originals, the trial judge held that said documents are
“copies duly certified by the legal custodian of said record.” He was
evidently referring to Exhibit B which is a certification that the
attached copy of a letter (Exh. B-1 and no other), is a true copy of
the duplicate on file at said office (Consular Section, U.S. Embassy,
Manila). But this certification Exhibit B covers only Exhibit B-1
(letter dated Aug. 30, 1950 addressed to petitioner Suganoff by
American Vice Consul, E. C. Ross), which reads:

“With reference to your letter of May 26, 1950, to
the Department of State relating to your desire to establish the basis
of your claim to Philippine citizenship, you are informed that the
Embassy has received from the Department of State photostatic copies of
an application for passport executed by you upon which passport No.
30180 as a Philippine citizen was issued to you on May 4, 1932 by the
Governor General of the Philippines and also copy of Certificate of
Naturalization No. 7 issued to you by the Clerk of Court of Camarines
Sur on January 16,1930. These documents will be delivered to you when
you call at this Office.”

Petitioner would have the court infer that the “application for
passport” referred to in said letter Exhibit B-1 is Exhibit B-4 and the
copy of “certificate of naturalization No. 7” is Exhibit B-2. No
witness was presented to testify as to this fact. Be that as it may, we
find that Exhibit B-2 is a mere photostatic copy of an unsigned copy of certificate of naturalization,
allegedly issued by the Clerk of Court of the court of First Instance
of Camarines Norte on January 16, 1930. As regards Exhibit B-4, we find
it to be a mere phototastic copy of a duplicate of application for
passport bearing signature at the bottom thereof which remain unidentified.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that none of the documents
submitted by petitioner, especially Exhibit B-2 purporting to be a
certificate of naturalization issued on January 16, 1930 is an
“authentic” copy of a document required by Section 7 of Act No. 3110.
In such case, the remedy of petitioner seems to be that pointed out by
Section 30 of Act No. 3110,^[1] which in part provides:

“Sec. 30. When it shall not be possible to
reconstitute a destroyed judicial record by means of the procedure
established in this Act or for any reason not herein provided for, the
interested party may file his action anew. * * *.

With the above conclusion, the Court finds it unnecessary to pass upon the other issue raised by the Solicitor General.

Wherefore, the decision of the trial court is hereby reversed and set aside, without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., on leave, took no part.

---

^[1] See Sec. 51, Rules of Court, re-secondary evidence.