Republic of the Philippines vs. Go Bon Lee

The one-year period prescribed by Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law between the filing of the declaration of intention and the filing of the petition for naturalization is mandatory; a petition filed before its expiration is contrary to law, and the defect is not cured by the circumstance that the hearing is held after the one-year period has elapsed. Neither estoppel nor laches lies against the Government in the assertion of governmental rights, and a judgment granting citizenship, rendered in a non-adversary naturalization proceeding, is not res judicata as to the grounds supporting cancellation of the certificate.

Go Bon Lee, a Chinese national, sought admission to Philippine citizenship under the Revised Naturalization Law, a statute that conditions the privilege of naturalization upon strict compliance with prescribed requirements, among them the filing of a sworn declaration of intention one year before the filing of the petition and the enrollment of the applicant's minor children of school age in schools recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed. The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, is the petitioner-appellant, proceeding against Go as the holder of a certificate of naturalization. The case turns on the mandatory character of those statutory conditions and on the susceptibility of a naturalization judgment to collateral attack by the State.

Go Bon Lee, a Chinese national residing in Cebu, sought Philippine citizenship under the Revised Naturalization Law. On May 23, 1940, he filed with the Bureau of Justice the sworn declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines required of aliens in his situation, and on April 18, 1941 — less than one year later — he filed his petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The Court of First Instance of Cebu granted him Philippine citizenship on November 26, 1941; he took his oath of allegiance on February 11, 1942, and Certificate of Naturalization No. 4 was issued to him thereafter.

At the time he filed his petition for naturalization in 1941, Go had five minor children of school age. Four of them were then living in China, where they had been born, and had never been enrolled in any public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education in the Philippines. Go attributed his non-compliance to factors beyond his control, namely the unsettled conditions in China and the strictness of Philippine immigration laws. His own testimony showed that in 1930 he had taken his daughter Juanita, who was born in Cebu, to China, where she remained until she was brought back to the Philippines in 1938, and no satisfactory proof was presented that he had exerted efforts at that time to bring his other four minor children to the Philippines.

On August 15, 1951, the Solicitor General filed a petition for cancellation of Go's certificate of naturalization on four grounds: (1) that the certificate was obtained illegally or contrary to law because Go did not then have all the necessary qualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines; (2) that at the time he was granted Philippine citizenship he had not enrolled all his minor children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum; (3) that he did not reside continuously in the Philippines for ten years; and (4) that he filed his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941 in violation of Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, because at that time one year had not yet elapsed since he filed with the Bureau of Justice his sworn declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. It was not denied that Go had complied with the declaration requirement on May 23, 1940, nor that his petition for naturalization was filed on April 18, 1941.

The Court of First Instance of Cebu denied the petition. It held that Go had substantially complied with the one-year requirement because the hearing of his petition was held more than one year after the filing of his declaration of intention, and it expressed the view that the matter of Go's citizenship was already res judicata and that the Government was in estoppel to question his status as a citizen upon any ground which could have been raised before or during the hearing of the petition for naturalization. The Government appealed.

• Illegal Procurement of the Certificate: The Government, through the Solicitor General, maintained that the certificate of naturalization was obtained illegally or contrary to law because Go did not then have all the necessary qualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines.
• Non-Enrollment of Minor Children: Petitioner asserted that at the time Go was granted Philippine citizenship he had not enrolled all his minor children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum.
• Failure to Reside Continuously for Ten Years: Petitioner alleged that Go did not reside continuously in the Philippines for ten years.
• Violation of Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law: Petitioner contended that Go filed his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941 in violation of Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, because at that time one year had not yet elapsed since he filed with the Bureau of Justice his sworn declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines.

• Excuses for Non-Compliance: Go claimed that his failure to comply with the legal requirement of enrolling his minor children of school age in a recognized school was due to different factors beyond his control, such as the unsettled conditions in China and the strictness of Philippine immigration laws.

• Substantial Compliance with the One-Year Period: Whether a petition for naturalization filed before the expiration of one year from the filing of the declaration of intention violates Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, notwithstanding that the hearing on the petition is held after the one-year period has elapsed.
• Non-Enrollment of Minor Children of School Age: Whether the applicant's failure to enroll all his minor children of school age in a public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education, where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed, constitutes a valid ground for the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization already issued.
• Res Judicata and Estoppel Against the Government: Whether the decision granting citizenship is res judicata and whether the Government is estopped from seeking cancellation of the certificate of naturalization upon grounds that could have been raised before or during the hearing of the petition for naturalization.

• Substantial Compliance with the One-Year Period: No. The one-year period under Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law is express and explicit, and courts may not consider expediency or good faith in construing it; the defect is not cured by the fact that the hearing was held after the period had elapsed.
• Non-Enrollment of Minor Children of School Age: Yes. Compliance with the requirement of enrolling all minor children of school age in a recognized school is mandatory, and its breach is a valid ground for denying the petition for citizenship or for cancelling a certificate of naturalization already issued.
• Res Judicata and Estoppel Against the Government: No. Estoppel and laches do not apply against the Government suing in its sovereign capacity, and a naturalization judgment is not res judicata as to the reasons or matters that would support cancellation of the certificate.

• Substantial Compliance with the One-Year Period: Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires that the petition for naturalization be filed after one year from the filing of the declaration of intention. It was undisputed that Go filed his declaration of intention on May 23, 1940 and his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941, clearly in violation of that provision. The trial court's view that there had been substantial compliance because the hearing was held more than one year after the declaration was rejected: the language of the law being express and explicit, it is beyond the province of the courts to take into account questions of expediency, good faith, and other similar considerations in construing its provisions. Were the trial court's view accepted, there would be no reason why a petition for naturalization could not be filed one week after, or simultaneously with, the declaration of intention, so long as the hearing were delayed beyond the one-year period. Such a ruling would amount to a substantial change in the law, which courts cannot make, their duty being to apply the law and not tamper with it. The Court invoked the rule that an alien seeking political rights as a member of the nation may obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by the legislature, and that courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications in matters so vital to the public welfare.

• Non-Enrollment of Minor Children of School Age: The requirement that an applicant enroll all his minor children of school age in a public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education is mandatory, and failure to comply constitutes a valid ground for the denial of the petition for citizenship or for the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization already issued. At the time Go filed his petition in 1941 he had five minor children of school age, four of whom were then living in China, where they were born, and had never been enrolled in any recognized public or private school in the Philippines. The fact that an applicant's minor children were born and have lived since infancy in China does not excuse him from complying with this requirement. Go's claim that his failure was due to factors beyond his control — the unsettled conditions in China and the strictness of Philippine immigration laws — did not constitute valid excuses for non-compliance. Moreover, his own testimony showed that in 1930 he took his daughter Juanita, who was born in Cebu, to China, where she remained until she was brought back to the Philippines in 1938, and no satisfactory proof was presented that he had exerted efforts at that time to bring his other four minor children to the Philippines.

• Res Judicata and Estoppel Against the Government: The trial court's view that Go's citizenship was already res judicata and that the Government was in estoppel to question his status upon any ground that could have been raised before or during the hearing of the petition for naturalization was untenable. The doctrine of estoppel or of laches does not apply against the Government suing in its capacity as sovereign or asserting governmental rights, and the Government is never estopped by mistakes or errors on the part of its agents; estoppel cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law or is against public policy. Further, unlike final decisions in actions and other proceedings in court, a decision or order granting citizenship does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding, not being a judicial adversary proceeding, is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters that 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 its issuance, as where the applicant secured it by misleading the court on any material fact. Citizenship is an offer of privilege extended to an alien friend under certain conditions; the applicant's claim is one of favor, not of right, and he may become a citizen only upon and after strict compliance with the law. Being bound to see that the jurisdictional facts upon which the grant is predicated actually exist, he takes nothing by a paper grant if they do not; and since Congress has limited the privilege to a specified class of persons, a certificate issued to a person not so entitled must be treated as a mere nullity conferring no legal rights as against the government.

• Mandatory Character of the One-Year Period Under Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law — The petition for naturalization must be filed after one year from the filing of the declaration of intention. The period is not a mere formality susceptible of substantial compliance; because the statutory language is express and explicit, courts may not weigh expediency, good faith, or similar considerations, and the fact that the hearing is conducted after the one-year period has elapsed does not cure a petition filed prematurely. The Court applied the rule to the undisputed dates — declaration on May 23, 1940, petition on April 18, 1941 — and held the filing contrary to law.
• Non-Enrollment of Minor Children of School Age as a Ground for Denial or Cancellation — The requirement that an applicant enroll all his minor children of school age in a public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education, where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed, is mandatory. Failure to comply is a valid ground for denying the petition for citizenship or for cancelling a certificate of naturalization already issued. The Court held that the children's birth and continued residence in China, the unsettled conditions there, and the strictness of Philippine immigration laws do not excuse non-compliance, and that the applicant must show actual efforts to bring his minor children to the Philippines.
• Estoppel and Laches Do Not Lie Against the Government — The doctrine of estoppel or of laches does not apply against the Government suing in its capacity as sovereign or asserting governmental rights, and the Government is never estopped by the mistakes or errors of its agents. Estoppel cannot give validity to an act prohibited by law or against public policy. The Court applied this to reject the trial court's holding that the Government was barred from questioning Go's citizenship.
• Non-Application of Res Judicata to Naturalization Judgments — A decision or order granting citizenship does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding, not being a judicial adversary proceeding, is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters that 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 issuance, including the applicant's having misled the court on a material fact.
• Citizenship as a Privilege Requiring Strict Compliance — An alien friend is offered the privilege of citizenship under certain conditions; he may accept it and become a citizen upon compliance with the prescribed conditions, but not otherwise. His claim is of favor, not of right, and he is bound to see that the jurisdictional facts upon which the grant is predicated actually exist. Where the legislature has limited the privilege to a specified class, a certificate issued to a person not so entitled is a mere nullity conferring no legal rights as against the government.

• "The language of the law on the matter being express and explicit, it is beyond the province of the courts to take into account questions of expediency, good faith and other similar reason in the construction of its provisions" — This is the ratio for rejecting the trial court's substantial-compliance theory; it anchors the rule that the one-year period under Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law is not subject to equitable relaxation.
• "It is settled that the doctrine of estoppel or of laches does not apply against the Government suing in its capacity as Sovereign or asserting governmental rights." — The canonical formulation relied upon to dispose of the trial court's holding that the Government was barred from questioning Go's citizenship.
• "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 no 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." — The passage defines the non-adversary character of naturalization proceedings and explains why a grant of citizenship cannot bar a subsequent cancellation suit.
• "Congress having limited this privilege to a specified class of persons, no other person is entitled to such privilege, nor to a certificate purporting to grant it, and any such certificate issued to a person not so entitled to receive it must be treated as a mere nullity, which confers no legal rights as against the government, from which it has been obtained without warrant of law." — Quoted from U.S. vs. Sponrer and adopted by the Court, this states the consequence of non-compliance with the statutory conditions: the certificate is a nullity as against the State.

• De los Santos vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 13861, August 13, 1960 — Cited as controlling authority that where the language of the law is express and explicit, courts may not take into account questions of expediency, good faith, and similar reasons in construing its provisions.
• Cui vs. Dinglasan, 47 O.G. No. 12 Supp. 233; Orestoff vs. Government, 71 Phil. 240 — Cited for the principle that a court's ruling amounting to a substantial change in the law is impermissible, the judicial duty being to apply the law and not to tamper with it.
• U.S. vs. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, cited in Bautista vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-3353, December 29, 1950 — Cited for the rule that an alien seeking political rights may obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by the legislature, and that courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications.
• Tan vs. Republic, 49 O.G. 1409 — Cited for the rule that failure to enroll minor children of school age in a recognized school is a valid ground for the denial of a petition for citizenship or for the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization already issued.
• Lim vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-3575, December 26, 1950; Haw vs. Republic, 48 O.G. 1780 — Cited for the rule that the birth and continued residence of an applicant's minor children in China does not excuse him from complying with the enrollment requirement.
• Lian Chua vs. Republic, 48 O.G. No. 5, 1780 — Cited for the rule that unsettled conditions in China and the strictness of Philippine immigration laws are not valid excuses for non-compliance with the enrollment requirement.
• Pineda vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 52 Phil. 803 — Cited for the rule that the Government is never estopped by mistakes or errors on the part of its agents.
• Benguet Consolidated vs. Pineda, 52 O.G. No. 4, 1961; Eugenio vs. Perdido, G.R. No. L-7083, May 19, 1955 — Cited for the rule that estoppel cannot give validity to an act prohibited by law or against public policy.
• Bell vs. Attorney General, 56 Phil. 667 — Cited for the rule that a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently found that the applicant secured it by misleading the court on any material fact.
• U.S. vs. Sponrer, 175 Fed. 440 — Quoted at length for the propositions that citizenship is a privilege rather than a right, that the applicant must strictly comply with the prescribed conditions and must see that the jurisdictional facts exist, and that a certificate issued without warrant of law is a mere nullity conferring no legal rights against the government.

• Section 5, Revised Naturalization Law — Requires that the petition for naturalization be filed after one year from the filing of the declaration of intention to become a citizen. The provision was applied to the undisputed dates of record: Go filed his declaration of intention on May 23, 1940 and his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941, less than one year later, rendering the petition violative of the statute and the resulting certificate subject to cancellation.
• Enrollment of Minor Children Requirement, Revised Naturalization Law — The decision treats as mandatory the requirement that an applicant enroll all his minor children of school age in a public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum. Non-compliance was held to be a valid ground for the denial of the petition for citizenship or for the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization already issued, and Go's failure to enroll four of his five minor children of school age was held to justify cancellation.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur. Padilla, J., took no part.