IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TEOFILO YAP TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, TEOFILO YAP, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Solicitor General from a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Zamboanga City, holding that peti­tioner
Teofilo Yap is eligible for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the appeal is well
taken.  To begin with, the notice of the
filing of the petition herein was published in the “Clarion” which,
accord­ing to the lower court, is of general circulation in the City of Zamboanga.  Section 9 of the Naturalization Law provides,
however, that said notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province^[1] and the “Clarion” does not meet
this qualification.

Moreover, a naturalization case is a proceeding in rem and, as such, publication is required in order
that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the whole world, which would be
bound by the decision it may render, if the requirements of due process were
complied with.  In consequence, however,
of the failure to cause said publication to be made in the manner provided by
law, the lower court did not acquire, in this case, the jurisdiction necessary
to render a binding decision, and, hence, the decision appealed from is null
and void.^[2]

Although this conclusion may, at first blush, appear to be rather
technical, it is not so from the viewpoint of the substance of due process,
particularly of the purpose of said publication in naturalization
proceedings.  Indeed, notice of the
filing of the petition therein is required to be published, not only in the Official Gazette, but, also, in
a newspaper of general circulation in the province where
the peti­tioner resides, in order that as
many people therein who know the petitioner may be informed of his
application for naturalization, and be induced to submit to the authorities
such data relevant thereto as may be in their possession or within their
knowledge.  Otherwise, an undesirable
alien may ef­fectively prevent such data from reaching the authorities, by causing the notice to be published in a newspaper of
gene­ral circulation in a local subdivision other than his home town.

Then again, Section 7 of
the Naturalization Law1 re­quires that each petition for
naturalization be supported by the affidavit of two (2) “credible
persons.” Referring to the meaning of this phrase, we had occasion to say,
as early as May 30, 1958:

“x x x
Within the purview of the Naturali­zation Law, a ‘credible’ person is, to our
mind, not only an individual who has not been previous­ly convicted of a crime;
who is not a police char­acter and has no police record; who has not per­jured
in the past; or whose ‘affidavit’ or testi­mony is not incredible.  What must be ‘credible’ is not the
declaration made, but the person mak­ing it.  This implies that such person must have a good
standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright;
that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may
be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the
petitioner.  Thus, in
Cu vs. Re­public, G. R. No. L-3018 (decided on July 18, 1951), we declared that said affiants
‘are in a way in­surers of the character of the candidate concerned.’
Indeed, by their affidavits, they do not merely make the statements herein
contained.  They also vouch for the
applicant, attest to the merits of his petition and sort of underwrite
the same.” (Ong vs. Republic, 103 Phil., 964.)

The
attesting witnesses of petitioner herein do not appear to belong to this
category.  One of them, Leticia C.
Alvarez, is a teacher in the Zamboanga Chinese
School, in which he had been her pupil for two (2) years in the elementary
department.  The other, Catalino C. Pantaleon, is shop
superintendent of the Bureau of Public Highways, Zamboanga
City.  Without, in the least, underrating
the profession or occupation of each, the fact is that there is absolutely
nothing in the record to indicate, even if remotely, that any of them has the
sta­tus contemplated in the Naturalization Act. 
This is
not to cast any doubt upon the moral fabric of said witnesses.  It simply indicates that their honesty and
integrity – even if the same were assumed to be a fact – are insufficient to
place them within the class envisaged by law. 
It is, also, necessary that each one possess such a high degree of repu­tation
in the community for honesty and integrity that “his word may be taken on
its face value
as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner.”

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby,
reversed and another one shall be entered dismiss­ing the petition, with costs
against petitioner Teofilo Yap.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
“SEC. 9. Notification and appearance.  – Immediately upon the
filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish
the same at petitioner’s expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in
the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in
the province where the petitioner resides, x x x.”

^[2]
Augusto Dy vs.
Republic, L-20709, April 29, 1966; Chua vs. Republic, L-19695, October
31, 1964; Tan Ten Koc vs. Republic, L-18344,
February 28, 1964; Co vs. Republic, L-10761, November 29, 1958.

1
“SEC. 7.  Petition of citizenship.  – Any person desiring to acquire Philippine
citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate,
accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and
surname; x x x.  The petition must be signed by the applicant
in his own handwriting and be must be signed by the applicant in his own
handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons,
stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the
petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required
by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that
said petitioner has in their opi­nion all the qualifications necessary to
become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under
the provisions of this Act.”