REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MOVANT-APPELLANT, VS. FRANCISCO COKENG, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

Republic versus Cokeng

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines, as movant and appellant, against Francisco Cokeng, the respondent and appellee, in a denaturalization proceeding. The State sought to cancel the certificate of naturalization issued to Cokeng on the ground that he obtained it fraudulently or illegally. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of the word residence in the Naturalization Law and settles that the omission of a former place of residence is fatal to the application, regardless of the applicant's good faith.

Procedural History

The Solicitor General instituted the denaturalization proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the very court that had granted Cokeng his citizenship. The trial court denied the State's motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of citizenship upon the two grounds raised by the Solicitor General. Cokeng then filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision. The resolution now before us denies that motion for reconsideration, maintaining the denaturalization earlier decreed.

Facts

Francisco Cokeng became a Filipino citizen through naturalization, taking his oath of allegiance and receiving his certificate of naturalization. In his application, as amended and published, he stated his address as 428 Sto. Cristo, Manila. He did not reveal that he had also resided at 28 12th Street, corner Broadway, Quezon City.

That he had resided in the Quezon City house is indubitable, because he himself manifested it in several public documents executed between 1951 and 1954, some of which he even swore to. His explanations, that the Quezon City address was set down by mistake, or was an address and not a residence, or that he had purchased the house for his parents, were examined and found unconvincing.

On the second ground, the State charged that Cokeng had committed underdeclarations of his income, showing a lack of irreproachable conduct. The tax records, however, produced conflicting results across several groups of examiners. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ultimately confirmed and adopted findings that there was no evidence of bad faith, and that Cokeng had even voluntarily filed amended returns and a supplementary inventory, demonstrating good faith and civic-mindedness long before the denaturalization case was started.

Issues

• Whether or not the word residence in the Naturalization Law means legal domicile, or actual physical residence, whether temporary or permanent.
• Whether or not the applicant's good faith in omitting one or more of his present and past places of residence is relevant to the validity of his naturalization.
• Whether or not a final decree of naturalization bars the State from corrective action through denaturalization for a certificate illegally obtained.
• Whether or not the charge of underdeclaration of income was clearly established as a ground for denaturalization.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of the Naturalization Law requires the applicant to state his present and past places of residence:

It is noteworthy that section 7 of the Naturalization Law expressly requires the applicant to state his "present and past places of residence", and the words used in the statute clearly show that the term used ("residence") was not employed in the sense of "legal domicile", precisely because a person can only have one domicile.

This provision is the measure of the applicant's duty of disclosure, and its breach is the ground on which the denaturalization rests.

Section 18 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 authorizes cancellation of the certificate:

For under section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, "a competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate issued and its registration in the civil registry whenever it is shown that ---- said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally".

This is the statutory basis for the State's corrective action even after the decree of naturalization has become final.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that residence under the law means actual physical residence, not legal domicile. A person can have only one domicile, so the statute's use of the plural places of residence shows the term was not employed in the sense of legal domicile. The purpose is to enable the public and the investigating agencies of the government to gather all information as to the conduct of an applicant, and thus determine whether his behavior has been irreproachable.

On the second issue, the Court held that good faith is irrelevant. Whether the omission be in good or bad faith, the fact is that full inquiry as to the irreproachability of the applicant's behavior is thereby prevented, and the law's intent frustrated. Hence such omission is fatal to the application for naturalization.

On the third issue, the Court held that although the decree had become final, the State is not thereby deprived of corrective action through denaturalization. The term illegally procured is not limited to irregularity, but also denotes a determination by the court contrary to law of the matter submitted to it. The lack of fraudulent intent or trickery is no obstacle to cancellation of a certificate originally issued in violation of law.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that, despite the suspicious variations in the results of the different examinations of the tax cases, the second charge of underdeclaration of income has not been clearly established, and denaturalization cannot be predicated upon it.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, residence in the Naturalization Law means actual physical residence, whether temporary or permanent, and not legal domicile. Second, the applicant must disclose all his present and past places of residence, and the omission of any of them is fatal to the application, regardless of good or bad faith. Third, a certificate of naturalization obtained in violation of law is illegally procured and may be cancelled under section 18 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, even after the decree has become final, and even without proof of fraud.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the denaturalization decreed in the original decision was maintained, with the result that Cokeng's certificate of naturalization stands cancelled.

Remember This

Memorize this line: residence in the Naturalization Law means actual physical residence, and the omission of any former place of residence is fatal, whether in good or bad faith. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between residence and domicile in naturalization, and the rule that a final decree does not bar denaturalization for a certificate illegally procured.