G.R. No. 262938 - Walter Manuel F. Prescott vs. Bureau of Immigration, as represented by Hon. Rogelio D. Gevero, Jr. and the Department of Justice

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262938)

Procedural History

Respondent filed a Declaration of Intention to become a Philippine citizen with the Office of the Solicitor General on August 22, 2007. He then filed his Petition for Naturalization with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49, Manila, on March 12, 2008 and an amended petition on April 5, 2008 (Civil Case No. 08-118905). The OSG opposed various procedural aspects and moved to dismiss. The RTC granted the petition on June 3, 2009 but made the decree executory only after a two-year probationary period under RA No. 530. The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC on June 30, 2011. The Republic filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which led to the Supreme Court decision reversing the CA and dismissing the petition for naturalization.

Factual Background and Allegations by Respondent

Respondent alleged birth on November 29, 1963 in Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China; arrival in the Philippines on March 15, 1988 (via Philippine Airlines Flight PR 311); continuous and permanent residence since arrival; marriage to a British national in 1989 and four children born in Manila; education at St. Stephen’s High School in Manila; competency in English and Tagalog; entrepreneurial activities and sufficient income; and entitlement to the reduced five-year residence requirement under Section 3 of CA No. 473. Respondent sought naturalization supported by documentary and testimonial evidence.

Evidence and Filings Presented by Respondent

Respondent submitted a barangay certificate, police clearance, Alien Certificate of Registration, immigration certificate of residence, marriage contract, authenticated birth certificates of his children, affidavits of character witnesses, passport, 2006 income tax return, the declaration of intention, and a Bureau of Immigration certification with travel records from January 30, 1994. He testified at hearing and presented two character witnesses who attested to his good moral character and conduct during residency.

Notice, Publication, and Scheduling of Hearing

Notice of the petition was posted at Manila City Hall and published in the Official Gazette on June 30, July 7, and July 14, 2008, and in the Manila Times on May 30, June 6, and June 13, 2008. Respondent moved for an early hearing setting to July 31, 2008; the OSG opposed as violating statutory timing requirements. The RTC denied the early-setting motion, ordered the earliest hearing not before December 15, 2008 (six months after last publication), and temporarily suspended proceedings until statutory requirements were completed. The RTC later reinstated the original April 3, 2009 hearing date; the OSG reiterated opposition in open court on December 15, 2008.

RTC Disposition

On June 3, 2009, the RTC granted respondent’s petition for naturalization and declared him a Filipino citizen by naturalization, subject to a two-year executory period under Section 1 of RA No. 530 and specified conditions (non-departure from the Philippines, continuous lawful calling, no convictions or acts prejudicial to national interests). The RTC ordered issuance and registration of a Naturalization Certificate once the decision became executory.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC on June 30, 2011. The CA found that although the petition was filed less than one year after the declaration of intention, this defect was not fatal. It also rejected the OSG’s contention that respondent failed to present a Certificate of Arrival, noting confirmation from a Bureau of Immigration certification and passport stamps. The CA observed that the Republic participated fully and exercised due process in the proceedings and that the OSG had not challenged respondent’s qualifications substantively. The CA concluded respondent merited the privilege of naturalization.

Issues Raised by the OSG on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The OSG framed the pivotal issue as whether respondent should be admitted as a Filipino citizen despite failure to comply with mandatory provisions of CA No. 473, as amended. Specific alleged jurisdictional defects included: (i) filing the naturalization petition less than one year after filing the declaration of intention; (ii) failure to attach a certificate of arrival to the declaration of intention; and (iii) failure to comply strictly with publication and posting requirements (including alleged premature hearing setting and non-publication of an order moving hearing dates).

Statutory Provision on Declaration of Intention and Its Purpose

Section 5 of CA No. 473 (as amended) requires the applicant to file a declaration of intention one year prior to filing the petition for naturalization and mandates that no declaration be valid until lawful entry for permanent residence is shown by a certificate of arrival. The Court reiterated the purpose of the one-year waiting period as allowing the State time to investigate qualifications, verify bona fides and sincerity, and prevent opportunistic or purely self-interested applicants from abusing the naturalization process.

Governing Jurisprudence Cited by the Court

The decision relied on established jurisprudence holding the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 262938)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by the Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 30, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 93374.
The CA decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49, Manila Decision dated June 3, 2009, which granted the petition for naturalization of respondent Li Ching Chung (also known as Bernabe Luna Li or Stephen Lee Keng).
The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Mendoza, reviewed the CA ruling and the RTC proceedings and rendered judgment reversing the CA and dismissing the petition for naturalization of respondent, without prejudice to refiling.
Final dispositive action by the Supreme Court: the petition of the Republic was GRANTED; the CA Decision (June 30, 2011) was REVERSED and SET ASIDE; the RTC decree granting naturalization was DISMISSED, without prejudice.

Factual Background

Respondent, a Chinese national using the names Li Ching Chung, Bernabe Luna Li, and Stephen Lee Keng, filed a Declaration of Intention to Become a Citizen of the Philippines on August 22, 2007 before the Office of the Solicitor General (Records, pp. 20-21).
Respondent filed his Petition for Naturalization before the RTC on March 12, 2008 (Civil Case No. 08-118905) — approximately seven months after the declaration of intention (Records, pp. 1-4).
An Amended Petition for Naturalization was filed on April 5, 2008 (Records, pp. 26-29).
Allegations in the amended petition included: birth on November 29, 1963 in Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China; arrival in the Philippines claimed as March 15, 1988 via Philippine Airlines Flight PR 311 landing at Ninoy Aquino International Airport; marriage on November 19, 1989 to Cindy Sze Mei Ngar (a British national) and four children born in Manila; continuous and permanent residence in the Philippines since arrival with current residence in Manila and prior residence in Malabon; ability to speak and write English and Tagalog and education from St. Stephen’s High School of Manila; claim of entitlement to the benefit of Section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 reducing the residence requirement to five years; and operation of a trading general merchandise business under the name AVS Marketing Corporation (Records, id.; TSN April 3, 2009, p. 10).
Respondent submitted multiple documentary attachments in support: barangay certificate, police clearance, alien certificate of registration, immigration certificate of residence, marriage contract, authenticated birth certificates of his children, affidavits of character witnesses, passport, 2006 annual income tax return, declaration of intention, and a Bureau of Immigration certification with travel records from January 30, 1994 (Records, pp. 5-23).
Notice of the petition was posted at Manila City Hall and published in the Official Gazette on June 30, July 7, and July 14, 2008 and in the Manila Times on May 30, June 6, and June 13, 2008. The petition’s initial hearing was set for April 3, 2009 (Records, Exhibits listed at pp. 205-228; Records, p. 49).

Procedural Events and Motions in the RTC

Respondent moved for an early setting so the hearing could be moved from April 3, 2009 to July 31, 2008, claiming the need to acquire real estate properties (Records, pp. 50-51).
The OSG opposed the Motion for Early Setting arguing violation of Section 1, RA 530 which requires the hearing on the petition to be held not earlier than six months from the date of last publication (Opposition, Records, pp. 55-59; Records, p. 56).
The RTC denied the motion for early setting in its July 31, 2008 Order, ruling that the earliest setting was December 15, 2008 because the last publication in a newspaper of general circulation was on June 13, 2008 (Records, p. 54).
On December 15, 2008, the OSG reiterated its opposition in open court and the RTC ordered suspension of judicial proceedings until all statutory requirements were completed (Records, p. 60).
The OSG filed a motion to dismiss (Records, pp. 111-128); the RTC denied it in an Order dated March 10, 2009 and reinstated the original hearing date of April 3, 2009 as earlier noticed (Records, pp. 155-156).
On April 3, 2009, respondent testified and presented two character witnesses (Emelita V. Roleda and Gaudencio Abalayan Manimtim) to vouch for his moral character and conduct during residency (TSN, April 3, 2009; Records, p. 298).
On June 3, 2009, the RTC granted respondent’s application for naturalization and issued a decree declaring him a Filipino citizen by naturalization subject to the two-year executory provision of Section 1, RA 530 and compliance with relevant formalities (Rollo, pp. 57-64).

RTC Decretal Terms and Formal Requirements

The RTC declared respondent a Filipino citizen by naturalization but expressly made the judgment non-executory until after two years from promulgation and after a proper hearing with the Solicitor General or representative to ensure: (1) the applicant had not left the Philippines; (2) had dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession; (3) had not been convicted of any offense or violation of government rules; and (4) had not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to government policies (Rollo, pp. 63-64).
The RTC directed that, upon the decision becoming executory, the Clerk of Court issue a Naturalization Certificate after the petitioner subscribes to an Oath under Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 472 as amended, and that the Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila register the Naturalization Certificate in the proper Civil Registry (Rollo, pp. 63-64).

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and CA Ruling

The OSG appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (Records, pp. 391-393).
On June 30, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 93374 (Rollo, pp. 43-56).
The CA ruled that although the petition for naturalization was filed less than one year after the declaration of intention, this defect was not fatal.
The CA rejected the OSG’s assertion that respondent did not present a Certificate of Arrival, noting that arrival could be confirmed from an August 21, 2007 Certification by the Bureau of Immigration and from a stamp in respondent’s passport indicating arrival on January 26, 1981 (Rollo, p. 53).
The CA also found that the Republic had participated at every stage of the proceedings and had been accorded due process which it had exercised vigorously; the CA characterized any procedural defects as not tainting the proceedings nor the Republic’s meaningful exercise of due process (Rollo, pp. 54-55).
The CA observed that the OSG did not contest respondent’s qualifications or point to disqualifications and concluded respondent deserved the privilege of naturalization (Rollo, p. 55).

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition

The OSG framed the pivotal question whether respondent should be admitted as a Filipino citizen despite undisputed failure to comply with mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, specifically:
- (i) The filing of the petition for naturalization within the one-year proscribed period from the filing of his declaration of intention;
- (ii) The failure to attach to the petition his Certificate of Arrival; and
- (iii) The failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements prescribed by CA No. 473 (Rollo, pp. 131-132; Rollo, p. 22).
The OSG argued the petition should be denied b