Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Guy

A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions subsequent to its issuance, and a decision granting citizenship is not res judicata as to matters supporting cancellation for illegal or fraudulent procurement; conviction for perjury, a crime involving moral turpitude, committed during the pendency of the naturalization petition negates the required good moral character and renders the acquisition of citizenship fraudulent or illegal. The administration of the oath of allegiance before the expiration of the Government’s period to appeal from the order allowing the oath is null and void.

Cesar Guy sought admission as a citizen of the Philippines, while the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, participated as the government party in the naturalization and subsequent cancellation proceedings. Republic Act No. 530 governs the taking of the oath of allegiance and the point at which an applicant becomes entitled to the privileges of citizenship. The dispute concerns whether a certificate of naturalization, once issued, may still be cancelled for illegal or fraudulent procurement or for grounds arising after its issuance.

Cesar Guy, then residing at Barrio Sumulong, Calauag, Quezon, filed with the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch, a petition to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines on August 18, 1956. The petition was given due course, and after hearing, the court issued an order on June 19, 1957 granting his application for citizenship. Two years later, on December 22, 1959, the trial court issued an order allowing Guy to take his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines. He took his oath of allegiance the same day and was then issued Certificate of Naturalization No. 27.

On September 23, 1964, the Solicitor General filed a petition with the court for cancellation of the certificate of naturalization issued to Guy on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently or illegally. The petition alleged that during the pendency of his naturalization petition, or more specifically on June 7, 1957, Guy filed with the Bureau of Forestry a sworn application for the issuance of an ordinary timber license wherein he stated that he was a Filipino citizen although he was not; he was charged with, and subsequently found guilty of, the crime of perjury by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The petition further alleged that on December 12, 1963, Guy was found guilty of raping Antonieta Cabahug, which resulted in her death, thus demonstrating an utter lack of good moral character and that he had ceased to possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to be a naturalized citizen.

Answering, Guy claimed that he acted in good faith in applying for an ordinary timber license, believing that he was already a citizen of the Philippines for all legal purposes when he filed the application because of the favorable decision on his naturalization case, and that he was not the one who personally wrote that he was a citizen of the Philippines on his application for the forestry license. The case was set for hearing, but when Guy failed to appear during the scheduled hearings notwithstanding notice to his attorney, the trial court appointed its Clerk of Court as commissioner to receive the evidence in support of the petition to cancel the certificate of naturalization. On October 31, 1968, the Solicitor General moved to be allowed to adduce additional grounds in support of the cancellation, particularly that the administration of the oath of allegiance to Guy before the expiration of the thirty-day period within which the Government may appeal from the order allowing him to take the oath was null and void under Ong So vs. Republic. On September 13, 1972, the Solicitor General submitted his documentary evidence, after which the trial court ordered him to submit a memorandum within thirty days. The Solicitor General filed his memorandum on December 9, 1972, and Guy’s counsel was given until January 15, 1973 to submit a counter-memorandum, after which the case would be deemed submitted for resolution with or without the memorandum. Counsel did not submit a memorandum despite extensions; instead, he filed a motion to admit an Amended Answer on June 4, 1973, which the court granted on August 7, 1973. The court then directed Guy to present his evidence, but he did not present any evidence despite many postponements. He filed a motion to submit written objections to the documentary evidence and to hold in abeyance the reception of his evidence on the ground that no notice was served on him or his counsel for the September 13, 1972 hearing. The trial court denied the motion on November 24, 1973, stating that Guy was notified every time the case was set for hearing but that his counsel failed to appear, thus constraining the court to permit the Solicitor General to present his evidence ex parte. Counsel was given a chance to present evidence on January 16 and 17, 1974, but failed to do so; accordingly, the case was considered submitted for decision.

On May 28, 1974, the trial court ordered the cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization No. 27 previously issued to Guy “in view of (his) conduct which resulted (in) his conviction for the crimes of perjury and rape with serious physical injuries, acts clearly indicative of his lack of one of the important qualifications, that is good moral character.” Guy’s counsel filed a motion to set aside the order on June 17, 1974, but the motion was denied on August 26, 1974. Another motion for reconsideration was denied on October 14, 1974. Guy appealed from these orders, claiming that he was deprived of his day in court and that the cancellation was unfair, unreasonable, unjust, and erroneous.

• Fraudulent or Illegal Procurement: The Solicitor General, as petitioner in the cancellation proceeding, alleged that Certificate of Naturalization No. 27 was obtained fraudulently or illegally because, during the pendency of the naturalization petition, Cesar Guy filed on June 7, 1957 a sworn application for an ordinary timber license stating that he was a Filipino citizen although he was not, for which he was charged and convicted of perjury; this indicated that he was not of good moral character and had not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.
• Lack of Good Moral Character: The Solicitor General further alleged that on December 12, 1963, Guy was found guilty of raping Antonieta Cabahug, which resulted in her death, demonstrating an utter lack of good moral character and that he had ceased to possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to be a naturalized citizen of the Philippines.
• Nullity of Premature Oath: The Solicitor General moved to adduce the additional ground that the administration of the oath of allegiance to Guy before the expiration of the thirty-day period within which the Government may appeal from the order allowing him to take the oath was null and void under Ong So vs. Republic.

• Deprivation of Day in Court: Cesar Guy, as respondent-appellant, argued that he was deprived of his day in court because he was not given a chance to personally present himself in court to explain his side and to adduce documentary evidence to support his cause.
• Unfair and Erroneous Cancellation: He contended that the May 28, 1974 order cancelling Certificate of Naturalization No. 27 was unfair, unreasonable, unjust, and erroneous because it would in effect nullify the initial decision promulgated on July 19, 1957 conferring Philippine citizenship on him; his convictions for perjury and rape with serious physical injuries were not within the two-year probationary period from July 19, 1957 to December 22, 1959 and occurred after he was already a naturalized citizen by virtue of final judgment, so he stood on equal footing with a native-born citizen.
• Good Faith in Timber License Application: He claimed that he acted in good faith in filing his application for a timber license, believing that he was already a citizen of the Philippines for all legal purposes because of the favorable decision on his naturalization case, and that he was not the one who personally wrote that he was a citizen of the Philippines on the application.
• Innocence of Rape and Pardon Recommendation: He stated that he was innocent of the crime of rape with serious physical injuries, citing the alleged findings of the Committee on Judiciary of the defunct House of Representatives which recommended the extension of an absolute pardon to him by the President; he also claimed that the timber license was a weapon used to help in the campaign against dissidents, he being a military agent.

• Due Process / Right to Present Evidence: Whether Cesar Guy was deprived of his day in court and right to present evidence when the trial court allowed the Solicitor General to present evidence ex parte and considered the case submitted after his counsel repeatedly failed to appear.
• Cancellation Despite Post-Probation Convictions: Whether the certificate of naturalization may be cancelled based on convictions for perjury and rape with serious physical injuries committed after the two-year probationary period and after citizenship was granted, or whether the naturalization decision is res judicata.
• Moral Turpitude and Good Moral Character: Whether perjury involves moral turpitude and negates the good moral character required of a naturalization applicant, rendering the acquisition of citizenship fraudulent or illegal.
• Validity of Oath of Allegiance: Whether the oath of allegiance administered on the same day as the order allowing it, before expiration of the Government’s appeal period, is null and void.

• Due Process / Right to Present Evidence: No. Counsel for Guy was given every opportunity to present evidence but repeatedly sought delays and failed to appear; the trial court properly allowed the Solicitor General to present evidence ex parte and considered the case submitted.
• Cancellation Despite Post-Probation Convictions: Yes. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions subsequent to its issuance, and a naturalization decision is not res judicata as to matters supporting cancellation for illegal or fraudulent procurement.
• Moral Turpitude and Good Moral Character: Yes. Perjury involves moral turpitude; conviction for perjury committed during the pendency of the naturalization petition negates the required good moral character and renders the acquisition of citizenship fraudulent or illegal.
• Validity of Oath of Allegiance: Yes, the oath was null and void. Administration of the oath before the expiration of the Government’s appeal period is an attempt to render nugatory the Government’s right to appeal, following Ong So vs. Republic.

• Due Process / Right to Present Evidence: The contention that Guy was deprived of his day in court was utterly devoid of merit. The record showed that counsel had been given every opportunity to present evidence. On January 30, 1973, counsel filed a motion for leave to present evidence; the court granted it on March 29, 1973, over the Solicitor General’s objection, and set the hearing on May 10, 1973. The hearing was reset to June 14, 1973 at counsel’s instance; then to November 8, 1973; then transferred to November 23, 1973, with a warning that failure of counsel to appear would be sufficient cause to consider the case submitted for decision. Counsel instead filed a motion to submit written objections and to hold the reception of his evidence in abeyance. The trial court denied the motion and gave him January 16 and 17, 1974, with another warning. When he again failed to appear, the case was considered submitted. The trial court had been very lenient with him, and no deprivation of the right to be heard occurred.
• Cancellation Despite Post-Probation Convictions: The fact that Guy’s convictions for perjury and rape with serious physical injuries were made after the two-year probationary period and after he had already been granted Philippine citizenship was of no moment. Citing Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, the Court stated that unlike final decisions in actions and other proceedings in court, a decision or order granting citizenship to the applicant does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters which would support a judgment cancelling the certificate of naturalization for illegal or fraudulent procurement. It is settled that a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions subsequent to the granting of the certificate.
• Moral Turpitude and Good Moral Character: The crime of perjury undisputedly involves moral turpitude. A person convicted of perjury cannot be said to be possessed of good moral character, an indispensable requirement for one applying for Philippine citizenship. Having been convicted by final judgment of perjury committed during the pendency of his petition for naturalization, Guy could not claim that he was of good moral character at the time his petition was still pending adjudication. His having been able to obtain Philippine citizenship despite this misconduct rendered his acquisition thereof fraudulent or illegal. Consequently, the certificate of naturalization issued to him was properly cancelled.
• Validity of Oath of Allegiance: It appeared that Guy took his oath of allegiance on the same day the court issued the order allowing him to take the oath, without giving the Government a chance to appeal from the order. In Ong So vs. Republic, the Court ruled that the administration of the oath of allegiance to an applicant for citizenship by the presiding judge on the day that the judge ordered the allowance of the applicant’s oath-taking is an attempt to render nugatory the Government’s right to appeal and is therefore null and void. The precipitate administration of the oath before the expiration of the Government’s period to appeal was highly irregular, and the order allowing the oath, the oath administered pursuant thereto, and the corresponding certificate of citizenship were null and void.

• Naturalization Decision Not Res Judicata; Cancellation for Illegal or Fraudulent Procurement and Subsequent Grounds — A decision or order granting citizenship does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters which would support a judgment cancelling the certificate of naturalization for illegal or fraudulent procurement. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions subsequent to its granting. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the cancellation despite Guy’s convictions occurring after the probationary period and after citizenship was granted.
• Good Moral Character and Moral Turpitude — Good moral character is an indispensable requirement for Philippine citizenship. Perjury is a crime involving moral turpitude, and a person convicted of perjury cannot be considered to possess good moral character. A conviction for perjury committed during the pendency of the naturalization petition negates the applicant’s claim of good moral character and renders the acquisition of citizenship fraudulent or illegal.
• Nullity of Premature Oath-Taking — The administration of the oath of allegiance before the expiration of the Government’s period to appeal from the order allowing the oath is null and void because it attempts to render nugatory the Government’s right to appeal. Republic Act No. 530 contemplates that the applicant for naturalization becomes entitled to all the privileges of citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance, and the precipitate administration of the oath before doubts about the applicant’s right are finally settled is highly irregular.
• Due Process in Naturalization Cancellation Proceedings — The right to be heard is satisfied where counsel is given ample opportunity to present evidence but repeatedly fails to appear or seeks delays; the trial court may allow ex parte presentation of the government’s evidence and consider the case submitted after warnings.

• "unlike final decisions in actions and other proceedings in court, a decision or order granting citizenship to the applicant does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters which would support a judgment cancelling the certificate of naturalization for illegal or fraudulent procurement. As a matter of fact, it is settled in this jurisdiction that a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions subsequent to the granting of the certificate of naturalization." — This passage states the ratio decidendi allowing cancellation despite the finality of a naturalization decision and is the Court’s central justification for upholding the cancellation.
• "The crime of perjury undisputedly involves moral turpitude. A person convicted of said offense cannot be said to be possessed of good moral character, an indispensable requirement for one applying for Philippine citizenship." — This defines the moral-turpitude doctrine and its effect on the good-moral-character requirement for naturalization.
• "the act of the court of first instance in allowing this applicant to take the oath of allegiance even before the expiration of the Government's period to appeal from the order overruling its objections thereto, and, in fact, three (3) days before the Solicitor General received copy of the appealed order, is highly irregular, to say the least." — Quoted from Ong So vs. Republic, this passage supplies the basis for holding that premature oath-taking is irregular and cannot be sustained.
• "It being unnecessary to discuss the other objections of the state's attorneys, the appealed order allowing the applicant-appellee, Ong So, to take the oath of allegiance, as well as the oath administered pursuant thereto and the corresponding certificate of citizenship issued, if any, are declared null and void. Costs against appellee Ong So." — This states the effect of a premature oath: the order allowing the oath, the oath itself, and the certificate issued are null and void.

• Ong So vs. Republic, 121 Phil. 1381 — Cited for the rule that the administration of the oath of allegiance before the expiration of the Government’s period to appeal from the order allowing oath-taking is null and void, as it attempts to render nugatory the Government’s right to appeal.
• Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, 111 Phil. 805 — Cited for the rule that a naturalization decision is not res judicata and does not really become executory, and that a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled for illegal or fraudulent procurement or upon grounds or conditions subsequent to its issuance.

• Republic Act No. 530 — Cited in the Ong So excerpt; it contemplates that an applicant for naturalization becomes entitled to all the privileges of citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. The Court used this provision to explain why administering the oath before the Government’s appeal period expired was irregular and null and void.

Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin, Vasquez, and Relova, JJ., concur.