G.R. No. L-25300 - JANUARY 1974 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-25300January 4, 1974 In Re: Application for Philippine Citizenship of Chan Teck Lao.Chan Teck Laovs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-28541January 14, 1974 In Re: Lim Biak Chiaovs. Republic of the Philippines A.C. No. 929January 17, 1974 Vidal M. Tombo, et al.vs. Enrique P. Medina G.R. No. L-28609January 17, 1974 Zoila De Chavezvs. Enrique Zobel, et al. G.R. No. L-28614January 17, 1974 Vicente Bendanillo, Sr.vs. Provincial Governor, et al. G.R. No. L-30158January 17, 1974 Lorenzo G. Valentinvs. Andres Santa Maria, et al Concurring OpinionJustice Teehankee & Justice Barredo G.R. No. L-34644January 17, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Nicanor Alvarez G.R. No. L-34761January 17, 1974 Chan Bros., Incorporatedvs. Federacion Obrera De La Industria Tabaquera, Etc. G.R. Nos. L-34725-30January 17, 1974 Manuel B. Imbong, et al.vs. Oil Industry Commission, et al. A.C. No. 134-JJanuary 21, 1974 In Re: Rafael C. Climaco Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando & Justice Teehankee A.C. No. 838January 21, 1974 In Re: Atty. Felizardo M. De Guzman A.C. No. 973January 21, 1974 Ricaredo P. Velezvs. Agustin T. Locsin G.R. Nos. L-22160 & L-22161January 21, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Teodoro Tamani G.R. No. L-24002January 21, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Francisco Diaz, et al. G.R. No. L-26729January 21, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Lupo Riduca G.R. No. L-27730January 21, 1974 Prima Malipolvs. Lily Lim Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-28081January 21, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Jerry C. Velasco G.R. No. L-29680January 21, 1974 American Int'l. Underwriters (Phil.), Inc., et al.vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. Nos. L-30464-5January 21, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Alberto N. Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-29351January 23, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Isidro Ardisa G.R. No. L-23894January 24, 1974 Januario Jalandonivs. Victoriano H. Endaya, et al. G.R. No. L-32293January 24, 1974 Roberto Ocampovs. Fernando Buenaventura, et al. G.R. No. L-34222January 24, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Ignacio Sanchez, et al. G.R. No. L-34518January 24, 1974 Aurora P. De Leonvs. Fernando Cruz, et al. A.M. No. 381-MJJanuary 28, 1974 Graciano Lampauog, et al.vs. Francisco Villarojo G.R. No. L-26578January 28, 1974 Legarda Hermanos, et al.vs. Felipe Saldaña, et al. G.R. No. L-29097January 28, 1974 Sergio B. Ramosvs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-38037January 28, 1974 Roque Enervidavs. Lauro De La Torre, et al. G.R. No. L-25530January 29, 1974 Alfredo Vergel De Dios, et al.vs. Bristol Laboratories (Phils.), Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-25796January 29, 1974 Jose Y. Ilaganvs. People of the Philippines , et al. G.R. No. L-35526January 29, 1974 A. D. Santos, Inc.vs. Carolina Gomintong, et al. A.M. No. 53-MJJanuary 31, 1974 Lourdes Corpusvs. Cipriano P. Cabaluna, Jr., et al. A.M. No. P-158January 31, 1974 Francisco Sycipvs. Nicanor Salaysay, et al. G.R. No. L-23511 and L-23512January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Mori (Bilaan), et al. G.R. No. L-24075January 31, 1974 Crisanta Y. Gabrielvs. Dr. Jose R. Perez, et al. G.R. No. L-26195January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Dominador Mejia G.R. No. L-27892January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Domingo Calantoc G.R. No. L-29201January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Apolonio Obngayan G.R. No. L-30275January 31, 1974 Chef Products, Inc.vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-36138January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Antonio Rosqueta, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-36359January 31, 1974 Felix Bucton, et al.vs. Zosimo Gabar, et al. G.R. No. L-36982January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Abundio Z. Arrieta, et al. G.R. Nos. L-26188, L-26189 and L-26190January 31, 1974 People of the Philippinesvs. Francisco Doria The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. In Re: Application for Philippine Citizenship of Chan Teck Lao.Chan Teck Laovs. Republic of the Philippines In Re: Lim Biak Chiaovs. Republic of the Philippines Vidal M. Tombo, et al.vs. Enrique P. Medina Zoila De Chavezvs. Enrique Zobel, et al. Vicente Bendanillo, Sr.vs. Provincial Governor, et al. Lorenzo G. Valentinvs. Andres Santa Maria, et al Concurring OpinionJustice Teehankee & Justice Barredo People of the Philippinesvs. Nicanor Alvarez Chan Bros., Incorporatedvs. Federacion Obrera De La Industria Tabaquera, Etc. Manuel B. Imbong, et al.vs. Oil Industry Commission, et al. In Re: Rafael C. Climaco Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando & Justice Teehankee In Re: Atty. Felizardo M. De Guzman Ricaredo P. Velezvs. Agustin T. Locsin People of the Philippinesvs. Teodoro Tamani People of the Philippinesvs. Francisco Diaz, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Lupo Riduca Prima Malipolvs. Lily Lim Tan, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Jerry C. Velasco American Int'l. Underwriters (Phil.), Inc., et al.vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Alberto N. Domingo, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Isidro Ardisa Januario Jalandonivs. Victoriano H. Endaya, et al. Roberto Ocampovs. Fernando Buenaventura, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Ignacio Sanchez, et al. Aurora P. De Leonvs. Fernando Cruz, et al. Graciano Lampauog, et al.vs. Francisco Villarojo Legarda Hermanos, et al.vs. Felipe Saldaña, et al. Sergio B. Ramosvs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. Roque Enervidavs. Lauro De La Torre, et al. Alfredo Vergel De Dios, et al.vs. Bristol Laboratories (Phils.), Inc., et al. Jose Y. Ilaganvs. People of the Philippines , et al. A. D. Santos, Inc.vs. Carolina Gomintong, et al. Lourdes Corpusvs. Cipriano P. Cabaluna, Jr., et al. Francisco Sycipvs. Nicanor Salaysay, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Mori (Bilaan), et al. Crisanta Y. Gabrielvs. Dr. Jose R. Perez, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Dominador Mejia People of the Philippinesvs. Domingo Calantoc People of the Philippinesvs. Apolonio Obngayan Chef Products, Inc.vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Antonio Rosqueta, Jr., et al. Felix Bucton, et al.vs. Zosimo Gabar, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Abundio Z. Arrieta, et al. People of the Philippinesvs. Francisco Doria The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-25300 January 4, 1974

CHAN TECK LAO,petitioner-appellant,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,oppositor-appellant.

Leocadio D. Santiago, Manuel O. Chan and Gerardo Cabo Chan for petitioner-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Bernardo Pardo for oppositor-appellant.

FERNANDO,J.:

The 1967 leading case ofGan Tsitung v. Republic1with former Chief Justice Concepcion as spokesman for the Court, indicates clearly the merit of this appeal by petitioner Chan Teck Lao from a lower court decision promulgated in 1965 ordering the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization that dates back to 1952 as a result of 1950 decision of this Tribunal sustaining his plea to become a Filipino. Gan Tsitung, in language plain and unequivocal makes manifest that no retroactive effect is to be given a judicial pronouncement that would impose on a party proceeded against in a denaturalization proceeding a requirement not in existence at a time that his application was heard and favorably acted on. There would be manifest unfairness in setting aside a decision that had subsequently become final and did lead to the grant of the coveted boon citizenship. Unfortunately, the lower court decision came out in 1965, a full two years earlier. The Republic thus emerged victorious in its suit to declare null and void the original judgment in favor of petitioner in view ofTan Ten Koc v. Republic,2which the year before held for the first time that an applicant must present positive evidence the newspaper where his petition was published was indeed of general circulation in the province where the proceeding was had. With the principle of nonretroactivity now firmly adhered to, there is no more justification for what the low court did.<äre||anº•1àw>The status of petitioner as a national of this country for well-nigh thirteen years ought to have remained undisturbed. What is more, a 1970 resolution of this Court penned by the present Chief Justice inRepublic v. Co
Keng,3warning against undue receptivity to claims by the State in denaturalization proceedings, further strengthens the position of petitioner-appellant in seeking a reversal. Such an approach can likewise be discerned in our resolution, with Justice Antonio asponente,inBurca v. Republic.4We therefore cannot affirm.

The facts are undisputed. As set forth in the decision now on appeal: "This case was filed on March 28, 1949. The application for naturalization of Chan Teck Lao was denied on October 31, 1949. Upon appeal the Supreme Court, ..., [on] June 15, 1950, reversed this Court's decision."5It was then noted that more than ten years later, on July 16, 1962, the Office of the Solicitor General filed the petition for the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, raising the alleged jurisdictional question based on the subsequent Tan Ten Koc ruling that there was no showing or proof that the Nueva Era was a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Tarlac, where the petitioner then resided. Such an objection was considered insuperable by the lower court in view of the tacit admission by counsel for petitioner of such failure on his part. It did, however, note in its decision: "The Court is not unaware that the trial court denied the application for naturalization of Chan Teck Lao; that it was reversed by the Supreme Court in its Resolution of June 15, 1950."6In its dispositive portion, it held "that it did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the application of Chan Teck Lao when it heard the same on September 6, 1949, and therefore [ordered] the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization of Chan Teck Lao as a Filipino citizen."7

The decision now on appeal lends itself to the interpretation that by virtue of Tan Ten Koc the outcome could not have been otherwise, notwithstanding the admittedly strong, equitable and legal considerations in favor of petitioner-appellant, who had in his favor a decision no less from this Tribunal granting him citizenship, dating back to 1950. Nor is this to find fault with the lower court. Rightly, it could have felt it had no other choice. With the categorical pronouncement however, in Gan Tsitung,8a reversal, as noted at the outset, is indicated.

1. In a manifestation and addendum to petitioner-appellant's brief filed with this Court on January 24, 1969,9our attention was invited to the Gan Tsitung ruling in further support of his stand that the lower court's decision cannot be upheld. As already made clear, such a plea is of the utmost persuasiveness. As was clearly set forth in the opinion of the Chief Justice: "After mature deliberation and in the light of the reasons adduced in appellant's motion for reconsideration and in the reply thereto of the Government, as well as of the data contained in the latter, the Court holds that the doctrine laid down in the Ong Son Cui case shall apply and affect the validity of certificates of naturalization issuedafter,not on or before, May 29, 1957. Although there are divergent views on the precise time at which the decision of a court of last resort, declaring a given statute, process or proceeding null and void as unconstitutional or illegal, shall affect the validity of acts performed under such law or of similar processes or proceedings in analogous cases, the precedents appear overwhelmingly to favor such a solution as is just, fair and reasonable, having in mind public interest, as well as that of the parties directly concerned. As Professor Freund has put it, the issue "involves considerations, not only of principle, but, also, of practical administration." "10Herein this case, the very same consideration presents itself with equal validity. To rely on the 1964 Tan Ten Koc ruling which, after all these years, would require that positive proof as to the paper wherein the application was published in the place where the proceeding was had being of general application to petitioner-appellant who, as far back as June 15, 1950, had already been granted his citizenship by this Court, his certificate being issued two years thereafter, would, in the language of Gan Tsitung, be far from "just, fair and reasonable."11

2. The conclusion reached by us receives additional reinforcement that stems from the fundamental law itself. Chief Justice Concepcion, in Gan Tsitung, appeared to be of the same mind.ℒαwρhi৷Thus: "It should be noted, furthermore, that a similar view was, in principle, taken inRutter v. Esteban(93 Phil. 68) in which this Court declared void, the Moratorium Law unconstitutional, and, hence, null and void, butonly from the date of the promulgation of the decision therein(May 18, 1953), said moratorium beingdeemed effective prior thereto,despite the fundamental infirmity of the legislation that established it."12If it were otherwise, the decision would not, in his language, be "just, fair and reasonable."13It would be infected with the virus of arbitrariness and thus offend against the due process guarantee.

In the 1970 resolution inRepublic v. Co Keng14that finally put an end to what was a long-drawn-out litigation, the present Chief Justice was equally alert to a possible disregard of this basic safeguard. What is more, earlier, in the 1968 resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, he displayed sensitivity to the equal protection angle.15For it was in Co Keng that for the first time the attention of this Court was invited by counsel toSchneiderman v. United States,16Baumgartner v. United States,17andKnauer vs. United States.18All of these three leading American Supreme Court cases stand for the proposition that a naturalized citizen is entitled to similar treatment as a native-born citizen except where the Charter itself provides otherwise. If it were not so, there would be an infringement of the equal protection guarantee.19In Schneiderman, it was merely hinted at. Justice Murphy called attention to the fact that this was not a naturalization proceeding, in which the government was asked to confer a privilege; instead the government "seeks to turn the clock back twelve years after full citizenship was conferred" and to deprive petitioner of the "priceless benefits that stem from citizenship."20Once conferred then, it "should not be taken away without the clearest sort of justification."21In Baumgartner, Justice Frankfurter was quite explicit to the effect that under the American Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on equal footing with a native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.22So was Justice Douglas in Knauer. Thus: "Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship."23From such a perspective then, to impose an additional burden for the first time to warrant the denaturalization of a citizen whose naturalization was obtained after the most exacting scrutiny not only by the lower courts but by this Tribunal, and especially so after a long lapse of time, would be clearly to subject him to a risk that certainly the Constitution, with its pledge of equal protection, cannot countenance.

3. Then, there is our resolution inBurca v. Republic,24promulgated only last June. While this is a naturalization and not a denaturalization proceeding, the juridical philosophy that informs it is of some relevance. As was made clear in the opinion of Justice Antonio: "Certainly if the decision of the administrative agency on the matter of citizenship, as an important issue involved in the case, is affirmed by this Court, We find no cogent reason why such decision on the matter can not be given preclusive effect. We have conceded the authority of certain administrative agencies to ascertain the citizenship of the parties involved in the cases therein, as a matter inherent in or essential to the efficient exercise of their powers. Recognizing the basic premise, that there must be an end to litigations, some authorities recognize that administrative rulings or decisions should haveres judicataor preclusive effect. ... The same observation holds true with respect to a decision of a court on the matter of citizenship as a material matter in issue in the case before it, which is affirmed by this Court. For the "effective operation of courts in the social and economic scheme requires that their decision have the respect of and be observed by the parties, the general public and the courts themselves. According insufficient weight to prior decisions encourages disrespect and disregard of courts and their decisions and invites litigation" (Cleary,Res JudicataReexamined, 57 Yale Law Journal, 345)."25This Court spoke in no uncertain terms as far back as 1950 that petitioner-appellant met all the qualifications for citizenship.

WHEREFORE,the decision of the lower court of January 20, 1965 ordering the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization of Chan Teck Lao as a Filipino citizen is set aside and reversed.

Zaldivar (Chairman), Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët

Barredo, J., took no part.

Footnotes