Republic of the Philippines vs. De la Rosa

Naturalization proceedings that fail to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting under the Revised Naturalization Law are null and void, and any decision and oath of allegiance taken therein are without legal effect; a candidate who is not a Filipino citizen is disqualified from holding public office, and the candidate garnering the second-highest number of votes is not entitled to be declared winner when the highest-vote getter is disqualified.

Juan G. Frivaldo had previously been declared an alien by the Supreme Court in Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989), and was therefore disqualified from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. Seeking to reacquire Philippine citizenship, Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 473) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila. Raul R. Lee was the rival candidate for the governorship of Sorsogon in the May 1992 elections, representing the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), while Frivaldo ran under Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats (Lakas-NUCD). The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had before it a pending disqualification case against Frivaldo, which it had not yet resolved at the time of the consolidated petitions.

Juan G. Frivaldo had been declared an alien by the Supreme Court in Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989), disqualifying him from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. On September 20, 1991, Frivaldo 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" before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila (SP Proc. No. 91-58645). The presiding judge, respondent Hon. Rosalio G. De la Rosa, set the hearing for March 16, 1992, and directed publication of the order and petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks, with the last publication to be at least six months before the hearing date. The order also required posting of copies in a conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court.

On January 14, 1992, Frivaldo filed a motion to advance the hearing date, manifesting his intention to run for public office in the May 1992 elections and noting that the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy was March 15, one day before the scheduled hearing. The motion was granted on January 24, 1992, and the hearing was moved to February 21, 1992. This amended order was neither published nor posted. On February 21, the hearing proceeded with Frivaldo as the sole witness, presenting documentary evidence including affidavits of publication, certificates of appreciation, a certification that his birth record was not on file, and a certificate of naturalization issued by the United States District Court. Six days later, on February 27, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision granting the petition and declaring Frivaldo a Filipino citizen by naturalization. On the same day, Frivaldo took his oath of allegiance before the respondent judge.

Meanwhile, in the May 1992 elections, Raul R. Lee was the LDP candidate for governor of Sorsogon, while Frivaldo ran under Lakas-NUCD. Frivaldo was proclaimed winner on May 22, 1992. On June 1, 1992, Lee filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation, alleging irregularities in the proceedings and composition of the Provincial Board of Canvassers, Frivaldo's alienage with pending citizenship litigation before the Supreme Court, and Frivaldo's lack of registration as a voter. Lee prayed that the votes cast for Frivaldo be considered stray and that Lee be proclaimed winner based on the remaining valid votes. The COMELEC dismissed the petition on June 10, 1992, for having been filed out of time under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166, which prescribes a three-day period to appeal rulings of the board of canvassers on questions affecting its composition or proceedings. Separately, a petition for cancellation of Frivaldo's certificate of candidacy (SPA Case No. 92-016) had been filed on March 23, 1992 by Quiterio H. Hermo, alleging Frivaldo's American citizenship, legal infirmities in the naturalization decision, violation of the two-year waiting period under R.A. No. 530, and insufficient time between the last publication and the hearing. The COMELEC conceded that Frivaldo had not yet reacquired Filipino citizenship because the naturalization decision was not yet final, but contended that disqualification was not among the grounds cognizable in a pre-proclamation controversy and that election preparations had prevented timely resolution.

• Jurisdictional Defects in Naturalization: The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the naturalization proceedings were tainted with jurisdictional defects and procedural irregularities rendering the decision null and void.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by COMELEC: Lee argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ignored the fundamental issue of Frivaldo's disqualification in the guise of technicality, dismissing his petition solely on the ground of late filing.
• Invalid Voter Registration: Lee claimed that Frivaldo's inclusion 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.
• Non-Finality of Citizenship Grant: Lee maintained that the grant of Filipino citizenship to Frivaldo was not yet conclusive because the case was still on appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Stray Votes and Proclamation of Runner-Up: Lee prayed that the votes cast for Frivaldo be considered stray and that he, as the candidate obtaining the second-highest number of votes, be declared winner.
• Mandamus to COMELEC: Lee sought a writ of mandamus to compel the COMELEC to immediately resolve the pending disqualification case (SPA Case No. 92-016) against Frivaldo.

• Compulsion of Political Circumstances: Frivaldo alleged that the precarious political atmosphere during Martial Law compelled him to seek political asylum in the United States and eventually renounce his Philippine citizenship.
• Naturalization as Only Remedy: Frivaldo claimed that naturalization was his only available remedy, as repatriation proceedings were limited to army deserters or Filipino women who lost citizenship by marriage to foreigners, and his request for congressional sponsorship of a bill for reacquisition failed due to political rivals' maneuvers.
• Substantial Compliance: Frivaldo argued that there was substantial compliance with the law and that the public was well-informed of his petition due to media publicity, noting that the re-scheduling of the hearing was made without objection from the Solicitor General and that the courtroom was jam-packed.
• Dispensing with Two-Year Waiting Period: Frivaldo theorized that the rationale of the two-year waiting period — to allow public investigation of the applicant's background — could be dispensed with in his case because his life, both private and public, was well-known, citing his achievements as a freedom fighter and former Governor of Sorsogon for six terms.
• COMELEC's Procedural Defenses: The COMELEC contended that disqualification of a candidate was not among the grounds allowed in a pre-proclamation controversy, that the petition was filed out of time, that election preparations excused its failure to promptly resolve the cancellation case under Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and that the matter was effectively abandoned when Lee filed a quo warranto petition (EPC No. 92-35).
• Standing and Presumption of Validity: In response to the cancellation petition, Frivaldo denied the allegations and averred that Hermo, not being a candidate for the same office, lacked standing to file the petition, that the naturalization decision was presumed valid, and that no case had been filed to exclude his name as a registered voter.

• Validity of Naturalization Proceedings: Whether the RTC decision re-admitting Frivaldo as a Filipino citizen and the oath of allegiance taken pursuant thereto are valid despite procedural defects in the naturalization proceedings.
• Jurisdictional Requirements: Whether compliance with the publication and posting requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law is jurisdictional and whether the failure to publish the amended order advancing the hearing date vitiated the proceedings.
• Two-Year Waiting Period: Whether the oath of allegiance taken on the same day as the promulgation of the decision, without observing the two-year waiting period under R.A. No. 530, rendered the naturalization void.
• COMELEC Dismissal: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Lee's petition to annul Frivaldo's proclamation on the ground of late filing, thereby ignoring the issue of disqualification.
• Nature of Disqualification Challenge: Whether the challenge to Frivaldo's proclamation based on alienage is properly treated as quo warranto, not subject to the three-day prescriptive period under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166.
• Declaration of Runner-Up: Whether Lee, as the candidate who obtained the second-highest number of votes, is entitled to be declared winner upon Frivaldo's disqualification.
• Mandamus to COMELEC: Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to resolve the cancellation case is moot given the resolution of the other petitions.

• Validity of Naturalization Proceedings: No. The naturalization proceedings, the decision, and the oath of allegiance are null and void for failure to comply with the jurisdictional publication and posting requirements and for other procedural irregularities.
• Jurisdictional Requirements: Yes. Compliance with the publication and posting requirements under Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law is jurisdictional; the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the petition.
• Two-Year Waiting Period: Yes. The oath of allegiance taken on the same day as promulgation, without the two-year waiting period under R.A. No. 530 and before finality of the judgment, is void.
• COMELEC Dismissal: Yes. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition on technicality, ignoring the more serious issue of disqualification for lack of citizenship.
• Nature of Disqualification Challenge: Yes. The challenge to Frivaldo's title to office based on alienage is properly a petition for quo warranto, which is not covered by the three-day prescriptive period under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166.
• Declaration of Runner-Up: No. The candidate who garnered the second-highest number of votes is not entitled to be declared winner when the highest-vote getter is disqualified.
• Mandamus to COMELEC: Moot. The petition in G.R. No. 105735 is moot and academic in light of the resolution of the other two petitions.

• Validity of Naturalization Proceedings: Having opted to reacquire Philippine citizenship through naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law, Frivaldo was duty-bound to follow the procedure prescribed by that law. The law does not distinguish between an applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen and one who was never such a citizen, nor does it provide a special procedure for reacquisition by former Filipino citizens. The proceedings were marred by multiple irregularities: the hearing was set ahead of schedule without publication of the amended order, the hearing was held within six months of the last publication, the oath was taken before finality of judgment, and the two-year waiting period was not observed. These defects rendered the decision an anomaly.
• Jurisdictional Requirements: Under Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization 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 is jurisdictional, as held in Po Yi Bo vs. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 (1992). The publication and posting must be in full text for the court to acquire jurisdiction, per Sy vs. Republic, 55 SCRA 724 (1974). The amended order advancing the hearing date was neither published nor posted, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. The petition also lacked several mandatory allegations required by Sections 2 and 6, including good moral character, continuous residence for at least ten years, ability to speak and write English and a principal dialect, intention to reside continuously in the Philippines, and a declaration of intention or justification for its absence. The petition was further unsupported by the affidavits of two credible persons and a certificate of arrival as required by Section 7.
• Two-Year Waiting Period: Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after two years from promulgation, to observe whether the applicant has left the country, dedicated himself to a lawful calling, been convicted of any offense, or committed acts prejudicial to the country. Even apart from R.A. No. 530, a decision in a naturalization case becomes final only after 30 days from promulgation, and as to the Solicitor General, from the date of receipt of the copy of the decision, per Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Albay, 60 SCRA 195 (1974). Frivaldo took his oath on the same day as promulgation, before finality and without the two-year waiting period, rendering the oath void.
• COMELEC Dismissal: In light of the finding that Frivaldo was not yet a Filipino citizen, the COMELEC's dismissal of the petition on the technical ground of late filing constituted grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC failed to resolve the more serious issue of disqualification. The petition, insofar as it challenged Frivaldo's title to office on grounds of alienage, was properly one for quo warranto. In Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989), the Court held that a petition for quo warranto questioning a respondent's title for alienage is not covered by the ten-day period for appeal under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements that must be possessed not only at the time of election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.
• Nature of Disqualification Challenge: The argument that unseating Frivaldo would frustrate the will of the electorate was untenable. Both the Local Government Code and the Constitution require that only Filipino citizens can run and be elected to public office. The electorate, at the time they voted for Frivaldo, was presumably under the mistaken belief that he had legally reacquired Filipino citizenship.
• Declaration of Runner-Up: In Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989), the Court ruled that where the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared disqualified, the candidate who garnered the second-highest number of votes is not entitled to be declared winner. This was consistent with Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435 (1985), and Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 (1912).
• Mandamus to COMELEC: Given the resolution of G.R. No. 104654 (declaring Frivaldo not a citizen) and G.R. No. 105715 (annulling his proclamation), the petition in G.R. No. 105735 seeking to compel the COMELEC to resolve the cancellation case was rendered moot and academic.

• Jurisdictional Nature of Publication and Posting in Naturalization Proceedings — Compliance with the publication and posting requirements under Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 63, as amended) is jurisdictional. 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, and must be published in full text. Failure to comply deprives the court of jurisdiction, rendering all proceedings and the resulting decision null and void. The Court applied this doctrine to nullify the RTC decision, as the amended order advancing the hearing date was never published or posted.
• Two-Year Waiting Period in Naturalization (R.A. No. 530) — No decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after two years from its promulgation, to allow observation of whether: (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. The Court held that Frivaldo's oath of allegiance, taken on the same day as the decision's promulgation, violated this requirement.
• Continuing Qualification Requirement for Public Office — 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 required qualification is lost, the officer's title may be seasonably challenged. The Court applied this principle to sustain the quo warranto challenge to Frivaldo's governorship on the ground of alienage.
• Quo Warranto for Alienage Not Time-Barred — A petition for quo warranto questioning a respondent's title to office on grounds of alienage is not covered by the prescriptive period for appeal under the Omnibus Election Code or the three-day period under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166 for questioning the proceedings and composition of the board of canvassers. The Court treated Lee's petition as one for quo warranto and held the COMELEC's dismissal on technicality to be grave abuse of discretion.
• Disqualification of Highest-Vote Getter Does Not Entitle Runner-Up to Be Declared Winner — Where the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared disqualified to hold the office, the candidate who garnered the second-highest number of votes is not entitled to be declared winner. The Court denied Lee's prayer for proclamation based on the remaining valid votes.

• "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 he believes are inconvenient or merely of nuisance value." — This passage articulates the principle that an applicant for naturalization must strictly comply with all statutory requirements and cannot unilaterally dispense with those he finds inconvenient, forming part of the ratio decidendi for nullifying the proceedings.
• "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." — This is the Court's definitive ruling on the jurisdictional consequence of non-compliance with publication and posting requirements in naturalization cases.
• "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." — This is the canonical formulation of the continuing qualification doctrine, cited from Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989), and applied to sustain the quo warranto challenge.
• "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." — This passage rebuts the argument that unseating Frivaldo would frustrate the will of the electorate, grounding the disqualification in constitutional and statutory mandate.

• Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989) — Controlling precedent. The Court had previously declared Frivaldo an alien and disqualified from serving as Governor of Sorsogon. It also established that a petition for quo warranto based on alienage is not covered by the prescriptive period for appeal under the Omnibus Election Code, and that qualifications for public office are continuing requirements.
• Po Yi Bo vs. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 (1992) — Followed. Held that compliance with the publication and posting requirements in naturalization proceedings is jurisdictional, and that the absence of mandatory allegations in the petition is fatal.
• Sy vs. Republic, 55 SCRA 724 (1974) — Followed. Held that the publication and posting of the petition and the order must be in full text for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
• Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Albay, 60 SCRA 195 (1974) — Followed. Held that a decision in a naturalization case becomes final only after 30 days from promulgation, and as to the Solicitor General, from the date of receipt of the copy of the decision.
• Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989) — Followed. Held that where the highest-vote getter is disqualified, the candidate with the second-highest votes is not entitled to be declared winner.
• Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435 (1985) — Followed. Consistent with the rule that the runner-up is not entitled to proclamation upon disqualification of the winner.
• Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 (1912) — Followed. Early authority for the rule that the second-placer cannot be declared winner when the first-placer is disqualified.
• Alonto vs. Commission on Elections, 22 SCRA 878 (1968) — Cited by intervenor for the proposition that all pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided.

• Section 9, Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 63, as amended by C.A. No. 473) — Requires that both the petition for naturalization and the order setting it for hearing be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation. The Court held compliance with this provision to be jurisdictional.
• Sections 2 and 6, Revised Naturalization Law — Enumerate the mandatory allegations in a naturalization petition, including good moral character, continuous residence, language proficiency, intention to reside in the Philippines, and declaration of intention. The Court found the petition deficient in these allegations.
• Section 7, Revised Naturalization Law — Requires the petition to be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons vouching for the applicant's good moral character and the attachment of a certificate of arrival. The Court found these requirements unmet.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 530 — Provides that no decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after two years from promulgation. The Court held that Frivaldo's oath of allegiance, taken on the same day as promulgation, violated this provision.
• Section 19, Republic Act No. 7166 — Prescribes a three-day period to appeal a ruling of the board of canvassers on questions affecting its composition or proceedings. The Court held that this provision did not bar the quo warranto challenge based on alienage.
• Section 253, Omnibus Election Code — Prescribes a ten-day period for appeal in election contests. The Court, citing Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, held that quo warranto based on alienage is not covered by this prescriptive period.
• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — Provides that all petitions involving cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be decided not later than fifteen days before election. Cited by intervenor in urging prompt COMELEC resolution.
• Section 5, Rule 25, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Excuses the COMELEC from deciding a disqualification case within the period provided by law for reasons beyond its control. The COMELEC invoked this provision, but the Court found the petition moot.
• Section 5(2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari and mandamus. Invoked as jurisdictional basis for the petitions in G.R. Nos. 105715 and 105735.

Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.