REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, MANILA AND JUAN G. FRIVALDO, RESPONDENTS.

In Frivaldo v. Commission on
Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989), this Court
declared private respondent, Juan G. Frivaldo, an alien and therefore
disqualified from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon.

Once more, the citizenship of private respondent is put in issue
in these petitions docketed as G.R. No. 104654, G.R. No. 105715 and G.R. No. 105735. The petitions were consolidated since they principally involve
the same issues and parties.

I

G. R. No. 104654

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and Section 25 of the
Interim Rules, filed by the Republic of the Philippines: (1) to annul the Decision dated February 27,
1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila, in SP Proc. No. 91-58645,
which re-admitted private respondent as a Filipino citizen under the Revised
Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 63 as amended
by C.A. No. 473); and (2) to nullify the oath of allegiance taken by private
respondent on February 27, 1992.

On September 20, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for
naturalization captioned: “In the
Matter of Petition of Juan G. Frivaldo to be Re-admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines under
Commonwealth Act No. 63″ (Rollo, pp. 17­-23).

In an Order dated October 7, 1991 respondent Judge set the
petition for hearing on March 16, 1992, and directed the publication of the
said order and petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general
circulation, for three consecutive weeks, the last publication of which should
be at least six months before the said date of hearing. The order further required the posting of a
copy thereof and the petition in a conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk
of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Manila (Rollo, pp. 24-26).

On January 14, 1992, private respondent filed a “Motion to
Set Hearing Ahead of Schedule,” where he manifested his intention to run
for public office in the May 1992 elections. He alleged that the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy was
March 15, one day before the scheduled hearing. He asked that the hearing set on March 16 be cancelled and be
moved to January 24 (Rollo, pp. 27-28).

The motion was granted in an Order dated January 24, 1992,
wherein the hearing of the petition was moved to February 21, 1992. The said order was not published nor a copy
thereof posted.

On February 21, the hearing proceeded with private respondent as
the sole witness. He submitted the
following documentary evidence: (1)
Affidavit of Publication of the Order dated October 7, 1991 issued by the
publisher of The Philippine Star (Exh. “A”); (2) Certificate of
Publication of the order issued by the National Printing Office (Exh.
“B”); (3) Notice of Hearing of Petition (Exh. “B-1”); (4)
Photocopy of a Citation issued by the National Press Club with private
respondent’s picture (Exhs. “C” and “C-2”); (5) Certificate
of Appreciation issued by the Rotary Club of Davao (Exh. “D”); (6)
Photocopy of a Plaque of Appreciation issued by the Republican College, Quezon
City (Exh. “E”); (7) Photocopy of a Plaque of Appreciation issued by
the Davao-Bicol Association (Exh. “F”); (8) Certification issued by
the Records Management and Archives Office that the record of birth of private
respondent was not on file (Exh. “G”); and (8) Certificate of
Naturalization issued by the United States District Court (Exh. “H”).

Six days later, on February 27, respondent Judge rendered the
assailed Decision, disposing as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner JUAN G. FRIVALDO, is re-admitted as a citizen of the
Republic of the Philippines by naturalization, thereby vesting upon him, all
the rights and privileges of a natural born Filipino citizen” (Rollo, p.
33).

On the same day, private respondent was allowed to take his oath
of allegiance before respondent Judge (Rollo, p. 34).

On March 16, a “Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and
to Admit Motion for Reconsideration” was
filed by Quiterio H. Hermo. He
alleged that the proceedings were tainted with jurisdictional defects, and
prayed for a new trial to conform with the requirements of the Naturalization
Law.

After receiving a copy of the Decision on March 18, 1992, the
Solicitor General interposed a timely appeal directly with the Supreme Court.

G. R. No. 105715

This is a petition for certiorari, mandamus with
injunction under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to Section
5(2) of Article VIII of the Constitution with prayer for temporary restraining
order filed by Raul R. Lee against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and
private respondent, to annul the en banc Resolution of the
COMELEC, which dismissed his petition docketed as SPC Case No. 92-273. The said petition sought to annul the
proclamation of private respondent as Governor-elect of the Province of
Sorsogon.

Petitioner was the official candidate of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) for
the position of governor of the Province of Sorsogon in the May 1992
elections. Private respondent was the
official candidate of the Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats
(Lakas-NUCD) for the same position.

Private respondent was proclaimed winner on May 22, 1992.

On June 1, petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul
the proclamation of private respondent as Governor-elect of the Province of
Sorsogon on the grounds: (1) that the
proceedings and composition of the Provincial Board of Canvassers were not in
accordance with law; (2) that private respondent is an alien, whose grant of
Philippine citizenship is being questioned by the State in G.R. No. 104654; and
(3) that private respondent is not a duly registered voter. Petitioner further prayed that the votes
cast in favor of private respondent be considered as stray votes, and that he,
on the basis of the remaining valid votes cast, be proclaimed winner.

On June 10, the COMELEC issued the questioned en banc
resolution which dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time,
citing Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166. Said section provides that the period to appeal a ruling of the board of
canvassers on questions affecting its composition or proceedings was three days.

In this petition, petitioner argues that the COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion when it ignored the fundamental issue of private
respondent’s disqualification in the guise of technicality.

Petitioner claims that the inclusion of private respondent’s name
in the list of registered voters in Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon was invalid
because at the time he registered as a voter in 1987, he was an American
citizen.

Petitioner further claims that the grant of Filipino citizenship
to private respondent is not yet conclusive because the case is still on appeal
before us.

Petitioner prays for: (1)
the annulment of private respondent’s proclamation as Governor of the Province
of Sorsogon; (2) the deletion of private respondent’s name from the list of
candidates for the position of governor; (3) the proclamation of the
governor-elect based on the remaining votes, after the exclusion of the votes
for private respondent; (4) the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin private respondent from taking his oath and
assuming office; and (5) the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the COMELEC to resolve the pending disqualification case docketed as
SPA Case No. 92-016, against private respondent.

G. R. No. 105735

This is a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court in relation to Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the
Constitution, with prayer for temporary restraining order. The parties herein are identical with the
parties in G. R. No. 105715.

In substance, petitioner prays for the COMELEC’s immediate
resolution of SPA Case No. 92-016, which is a petition for the cancellation of
private respondent’s certificate of candidacy filed on March 23, 1992 by Quiterio H. Hermo, the intervenor in G.R. No.
104654 (Rollo, p. 18).

The petition for cancellation alleged: (1) that private respondent is an American citizen, and therefore
ineligible to run as candidate
for the position of governor of the Province of Sorsogon; (2) that the trial
court’s decision re-admitting private respondent as a Filipino citizen was fraught with legal infirmities
rendering it null and void; (3) that assuming the decision to be valid, private
respondent’s oath of allegiance, which was taken on the same day the questioned
decision was promulgated, violated Republic Act No. 530, which provides for a
two-year waiting period before the oath of allegiance can be taken by the
applicant; and (4) that the hearing of the petition on February 27, 1992, was
held less than four months from the date of the last publication of the order
and petition. The petition prayed for
the cancellation of private respondent’s certificate of candidacy and the
deletion of his name from the list of registered voters in Sta. Magdalena,
Sorsogon.

In his answer to the petition for cancellation, private
respondent denied the allegations therein and averred: (1) that Quiterio H. Hermo, not being a
candidate for the same office for which private respondent was aspiring, had no
standing to file the petition; (2) that the decision re­-admitting him to
Philippine citizenship was presumed to be valid; and (3) that no case had been
filed to exclude his name as a registered voter.

Raul R. Lee intervened in the petition for cancellation of
private respondent’s certificate of candidacy (Rollo, p. 37).

On May 13, 1992, said intervenor urged the COMELEC to decide the
petition for cancellation, citing Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code,
which provides that all petitions on matters involving the cancellation of a
certificate of candidacy must be decided “not later than fifteen days
before election,” and the case of Alonto v. Commission on Elections, 22 SCRA 878 (1968), which ruled that
all pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided (Rollo, p. 50).

The COMELEC concedes that private respondent has not yet reacquired
his Filipino citizenship because the decision granting him the same is not yet
final and executory (Rollo, p. 63). However, it submits that the issue of disqualification of a candidate is
not among the grounds allowed in a pre-proclamation controversy, like SPC Case
No. 92-273. Moreover, the said petition
was filed out of time.

The COMELEC contends that the preparation for the elections
occupied much of its time, thus its failure to immediately resolve SPA Case No.
92-016. It argues that under Section 5
of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, it is excused from deciding a
disqualification case within the period provided by law for reasons beyond its
control. It also assumed that the same
action was subsequently abandoned by petitioner when he filed before it a
petition for quo warranto docketed as EPC No. 92-35. The quo warranto
proceedings sought private respondent’s disqualification because of his
American citizenship.

II

G. R. NO. 104654

We shall first
resolve the issue concerning private respondent’s citizenship.

In his comment to the State’s appeal of the decision granting him
Philippine citizenship in G.R. No. 104654, private respondent alleges that the
precarious political atmosphere in the country during Martial Law compelled him
to seek political asylum in the United States, and eventually to renounce his
Philippine citizenship.

He claims that his petition for naturalization was his only
available remedy for his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. He tried to reacquire his Philippine citizenship through repatriation
and direct act of Congress. However, he
was later informed that repatriation proceedings were limited to army deserters
or Filipino women who had lost their citizenship by reason of their marriage to
foreigners (Rollo, pp. 49-50). His
request to Congress for sponsorship of a bill allowing him to reacquire his
Philippine citizenship failed to materialize, notwithstanding the endorsement
of several members of the House of Representatives in his favor (Rollo, p. 51). He attributed this to the maneuvers of his
political rivals.

He also claims that the re-scheduling of the hearing of the
petition to an earlier date, without publication, was made without objection
from the Office of the Solicitor General. He makes mention that on the date of the hearing, the court was jam-packed.

It is private respondents posture that there was substantial
compliance with the law and that the public was well-informed of his petition
for naturalization due to the publicity given by the media.

Anent the issue of the mandatory two-year waiting period prior to
the taking of the oath of allegiance, private respondent theorizes that the rationale
of the law imposing the waiting period is to grant the public an opportunity to
investigate the background of the applicant and to oppose the grant of
Philippine citizenship if there is basis to do so. In his case, private respondent alleges that such requirement may
be dispensed with, claiming that his life, both private and public, was
well-known. Private respondent cites
his achievements as a freedom fighter and a former Governor of the Province of
Sorsogon for six terms.

The appeal of the Solicitor General in behalf of the Republic of
the Philippines is meritorious. The
naturalization proceedings in SP Proc. No. 91-58645 was full of procedural
flaws, rendering the decision an anomaly.

Private respondent, having opted to reacquire Philippine
citizenship thru naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty
bound to follow the procedure prescribed by the said law. It is not for an applicant to decide for
himself and to select the requirements which he believes, even sincerely, are
applicable to his case and discard those which be believes are inconvenient or
merely of nuisance value. The law does
not distinguish between an applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen and
one who was never such a citizen. It
does not provide a special procedure for the reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship by former Filipino citizens akin to the repatriation of a woman who
had lost her Philippine citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien.

The trial court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition
for naturalization of private respondent. The proceedings conducted, the decision rendered and the oath of
allegiance taken therein, are null and void for failure to comply with the
publication and posting requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law.

Under Section 9 of the said law, both the petition for
naturalization and the order setting it for hearing must be published once a
week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of
general circulation. Compliance
therewith is jurisdictional (Po Yi Bo v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 [1992]). Moreover, the publication and posting of the
petition and the order must be in its full text for the court to acquire
jurisdiction (Sy v. Republic, 55 SCRA 724 [1974]).

The petition for naturalization lacks several allegations
required by Sections 2 and 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law,
particularly: (1) that the petitioner
is of good moral character; (2) that he resided continuously in the Philippines
for at least ten years; (3) that he is able to speak and write English and any
one of the principal dialects; (4) that he will reside continuously in the
Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition until his admission to
Philippine citizenship; and (5) that he has filed a declaration of intention or if he is excused from said
filing, the justification therefor.

The absence of such allegations is fatal to the petition (Po Yi
Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 [1992]).

Likewise, the petition is not supported by the affidavit of at
least two credible persons who vouched for the good moral character of private
respondent as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. Private respondent also failed to attach a
copy of his certificate of arrival to the petition as required by Section 7 of
the said law.

The proceedings of the trial court was marred by the following
irregularities: (1) the hearing of the
petition was set ahead of the scheduled date of hearing, without a publication
of the order advancing the date of hearing, and the petition itself; (2) the
petition was heard within six months from the last publication of the petition;
(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the finality
of the judgment; and (4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without
observing the two-year waiting period.

A decision in a petition for naturalization becomes final only
after 30 days from its promulgation and, insofar as the Solicitor General is
concerned, that period is counted from the date of his receipt of the copy of
the decision (Republic v. Court of First Instance of Albay, 60 SCRA 195 [1974]).

Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting
citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after two
years from its promulgation in order to be able to observe if: (1) the applicant has left the country; (2)
the applicant has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or
profession; (3) the applicant has not been convicted of any offense or
violation of government promulgated rules; and (4) the applicant has committed
any act prejudicial to the interest of the country or contrary to government
announced policies.

Even discounting the provisions of R.A. No. 530, the courts
cannot implement any decision granting the petition for naturalization before
its finality.

G. R. NO. 105715

In view of the finding in G.R. No. 104654 that private respondent
is not yet a Filipino citizen, we have to grant the petition in G.R. No. 105715
after treating it as a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for
mandamus. Said petition assails
the en banc resolution of the COMELEC, dismissing SPC Case No.
92-273, which in turn is a petition to annul private respondent’s proclamation
on three grounds: 1) that the
proceedings and composition of the Provincial Board of Canvassers were not in
accordance with law; 2) that private respondent is an alien, whose grant of
Filipino citizenship is being
questioned by the State in G.R. No. 104654; and 3) that private respondent is
not a duly registered voter. The
COMELEC dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was filed outside the
three-day period for questioning the proceedings and composition of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166.

The COMELEC failed to resolve the more serious issue – the
disqualification of private respondent to be proclaimed Governor on grounds of
lack of Filipino citizenship. In this
aspect, the petition is one for quo
warranto. In Frivaldo
v. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989), we held
that a petition for quo warranto, questioning
the respondent’s title and seeking to prevent him from holding office as
Governor for alienage, is not covered by the ten-day period for appeal
prescribed in Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. Furthermore, we explained that
“qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be
possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of
office but during the officer’s entire tenure; once any of the required
qualification is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.”

Petitioner’s argument, that to unseat him will frustrate the will
of the electorate, is untenable. Both
the Local Government Code and the Constitution require that only Filipino
citizens can run and be elected to public office. We can only surmise that the electorate, at the time they voted
for private respondent, was of the mistaken belief that he had legally
reacquired Filipino citizenship.

Petitioner in G.R.
No. 105715, prays that the votes cast in favor of private respondent be
considered stray and that he, being the candidate obtaining the second highest
number of votes, be declared winner. In
Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989), we ruled that where the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified to
hold the office to which he was elected, the candidate who garnered the second
highest number of votes is not entitled to be declared winner (See also
Geronimo v. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435 [1985]; Topacio v. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238
[1912]).

G.R. No. 105735

In view of the discussions of G.R. No. 104654 and G.R. No.
105715, we find the petition in G. R. No. 105735 moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. 104654 and G.R. No.
105715 are both GRANTED while the petition in G.R. No. 105735 is
DISMISSED. Private respondent is
declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore DISQUALIFIED from
continuing to serve as GOVERNOR of the Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to VACATE his office and to
SURRENDER the same to the Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once this
decision becomes final and executory. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., and Cruz,
J., no part.