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.

Teofilo Yap versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is an appeal by the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City granting the petition of Teofilo Yap to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to enforce two quiet but demanding safeguards of the Naturalization Law: the requirement that notice of the petition be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and the requirement that the petition be supported by the affidavits of two credible persons. It is a study in how procedural publication is really a matter of due process, and how the credibility of an affiant is measured by the community's estimate of the person, not merely by the absence of a criminal record.

Procedural History

Teofilo Yap filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. After proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision holding that Yap is eligible for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which reviewed the record and found the appeal well taken.

Facts

Teofilo Yap applied for Philippine citizenship in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. As required, notice of the filing of his petition was published in a newspaper called the Clarion. The trial court found that the Clarion was a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Zamboanga. On that and the other evidence, the trial court ruled that Yap was eligible for naturalization.

Yap's petition was supported by the affidavits of two attesting witnesses. The first, Leticia C. Alvarez, was a teacher at the Zamboanga Chinese School, where Yap had been her pupil for two years in the elementary department. The second, Catalino C. Pantaleon, was shop superintendent of the Bureau of Public Highways in Zamboanga City.

The Republic appealed, arguing that the trial court's decision could not stand. On review, the Supreme Court found that the Clarion was not a newspaper of general circulation in the province, as the law requires, and that the attesting witnesses did not possess the standing and reputation that the law contemplates for credible persons.

Issues

• Whether or not the publication of the notice of the filing of the petition in the Clarion, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Zamboanga but not in the province, satisfied the publication requirement of the Naturalization Law, and whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction to render a binding decision.
• Whether or not the two attesting witnesses were credible persons within the meaning of the Naturalization Law, so as to support the petition for naturalization.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of the Naturalization Law provides:

Section 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.

This provision fixes where the notice must be published, and the Court holds that publication in a newspaper circulating only in the city, and not in the province, does not comply with it.

Section 7 of the Naturalization Law provides:

Section 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. The petition 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.

This provision supplies the requirement of two credible affiants, and the Court measures the witnesses in this case against what it means to be credible.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the publication requirement was not satisfied. Section 9 requires publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and the Clarion, though of general circulation in the City of Zamboanga, did not meet that qualification. The Court explained that a naturalization case is a proceeding in rem, so that publication is required in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the whole world, which would be bound by the decision if the requirements of due process were complied with. Because publication was not made in the manner provided by law, the trial court did not acquire the jurisdiction necessary to render a binding decision, and the decision appealed from is null and void.

The Court acknowledged that this conclusion might at first blush appear technical, but explained that it is not, from the viewpoint of the substance of due process. Notice must be published not only in the Official Gazette but also in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, so that as many people as possible who know the petitioner may be informed of his application and be induced to submit to the authorities such data as may be in their possession or knowledge. Otherwise, an undesirable alien could effectively prevent such data from reaching the authorities by causing the notice to be published in a newspaper circulating in a local subdivision other than his home town.

On the second issue, the Court held that the attesting witnesses did not belong to the category of credible persons contemplated by law. Quoting its earlier ruling in Ong versus Republic, the Court said:

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.

The Court noted that the record showed nothing to indicate, even remotely, that either witness had the status contemplated in the Naturalization Act. It hastened to add that this was not to cast doubt on their moral fabric; it simply meant that their honesty and integrity, even if assumed, were insufficient to place them within the class envisaged by law. Each one must 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.

Doctrine

A petition for naturalization is a proceeding in rem. Publication of the notice of the filing of the petition in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides is jurisdictional, because it is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the whole world. Publication in a newspaper circulating only in a city, and not in the province, does not comply with Section 9 of the Naturalization Law, and a decision rendered without proper publication is null and void for want of jurisdiction.

Under Section 7 of the Naturalization Law, the petition must be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. A credible person is one of good standing in the community, known to be honest and upright, reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and whose word may be taken on its face value as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner. The absence of a criminal record, by itself, does not make a witness credible.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and entered a new one dismissing the petition for naturalization, with costs against Teofilo Yap.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that naturalization is a proceeding in rem, so publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the province is jurisdictional, and the two affiants must be credible persons whose word may be taken on its face value as a good warranty of the petitioner's worthiness. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdictional nature of publication in naturalization proceedings and the meaning of credible persons under Section 7 of the Naturalization Law.