[ G.R. Nos. L-2733-40. December 21, 1950 ] 87 Phil. 731
[ G.R. Nos. L-2733-40. December 21, 1950 ]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOSE PIO BARRETO, BENITO ONG BARRETO, AND SEBASTIAN ONG BARRETO TO BE ADMITTED CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal by the Government from three separate decisions of the Court of First Instance of Manila, granting the petitions for naturalization of Jose Pio Barretto, Benito Ong Barretto and Sebastian Ong Barretto. The appellant and the appellees have each filed a joint brief in these three cases because the questions raised are the same. That the petitioners-appellees possess the qualifications for naturalization and none of the disqualifications provided by law, is not controverted. The only legal contentions made by the appellant are (1) that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction because the legal requirements relative to publication of notice, particularly in the Official Gazette, have not been complied with, and (2) that the trial court erred in not holding that the appellees are not in a position to renounce effectively their Chinese nationality. I. The petitions for naturalization were filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on March 20, 1948. On April 1, 1948, the clerk of court issued notices of the petitions directing it to be published in the Official Gazette and in the newspaper Las Noticias, and the date of the hearing was set for July 30, 1948. On the latter date, appellees presented proof of publication of the notices in the newspaper Las Noticias, but in view of lack of publication in the Official Gazette due to the destruction by fire of the building that housed the Bureau of Printing, the court issued an order directing that the notices be published in the Official Gazette and set the hearing for November 5, 1948. On the latter date, appellees presented a certificate issued by the Bureau of Printing, to the effect that corresponding notices were published in the July, 1948, issue of the Official Gazette, No. 7, Vol. 44, though on the date of said certificate (November 2, 1948) said issue was not yet released. It is argued for appellant that, in view of the requirement of section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 473, that the hearing of the petition for naturalization “shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice,” the trial court had not yet acquired jurisdiction when it proceeded to hear the cases on November 5, 1948. It cannot be denied, in the face of the certification of the Bureau of Printing, that the notices appeared in the July, 1948, issue of the Official Gazette, and if said issue was not released on time, it was beyond the control of appellees. With reference to the date of the effectivity of statutes, it is provided that the Official Gazette “is conclusively presumed to be published on the date indicated therein as the date of issue.” (Sec. 11, Revised Administrative Code.) This is obviously for the purpose of avoiding uncertainties likely to arise if the date of publication is to be determined by the date of the actual release of the Gazette. If the policy regarding so important a matter as fixing the date of the effectivity of statutes, is to accept the date of issue indicated in the Official Gazette as conclusive, there is better reason for adopting said date of issue in respect of publication of notices in naturalization cases. This is specially so, because, as we have said in Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines vs. Felix (44 Off. Gaz., 1480, 1483[1]), the purpose of the publication in the Official Gazette and in one newspaper of general circulation, of the posting of notices in a public and conspicuous place in the office of the clerk of court or in the building where said office is located, and of the sending of copies of the petition to the Bureau of Justice, the Department of the Interior, the Provincial Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary and the Justice of the Peace of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides, “is to inform those officers and the public in general of the filing of such a petition in order that the public officers and private citizens supposed to be acquainted with the petitioner may furnish the Solicitor General or the provincial fiscal with such necessary information and evidence as there may be against the petitioner.” And this purpose has undoubtedly been accomplished in the cases at bar, it appearing that due notice was published in the newspaper of general circulation Las Noticias and all other formal requisites were complied with, and the Solicitor General opposed the petitions and appeared at the hearing thereof. Moreover, as observed in Delgado vs. Republic of the Philippines (G. R. No. L-2546, January 28, 1950), in which the Solicitor General contended that there was no sufficient evidence to show that the petition for naturalization was published in the Official Gazette as required by law,“it is not shown how the non-publication prejudiced the opposi-tion actually interposed against the application.” II. The second contention of appellant is that appellees have not shown that they were permitted by the Chinese Ministry of the Interior to renounce their Chinese Nationality, in accordance with the provisions of article 11, chapter III, of the Chinese Law of Nationality. A similar contention was overruled in L-2628, Parado vs. Republic of the Philippines, 47 Off. Gaz. (Supp. to No. 12), p. 19; 86 Phil., 340. Wherefore, the appealed decisions are affirmed without costs. So ordered. Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.