Po Yo Bi VS Republic Facts: Po Yo bi a Certified Chinese citizen who was born in the Philippines filed a pe tition for naturalization in the

CFI of Ilo-ilo, when approved and was scheduled for hearing, he moved to amend his petition twice which resulted in the moving of the said hearing also twice. In his second amended petition it contained inse rted allegations, however there was no stating that he is a person of good moral character. Upon the moving of his hearing to a final date of Feb. 26, 1962 with orders of publication in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general cir culation in Iloilo, however the second Amended Petition itself was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, but instead o nly the amended notice of petition was published. It was also not posted in a pu blic and conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court or in the buildin g where such office is located. After trial, the RTC granted the petition and de clared Po Bi as a Filipino citizen, but in his amended application, it failed to file a statement of intent to be naturalized as a Filipino citizen by birthin th is country which is the Philippines. On 30 October 1963 the Solicitor General filed a motion to reconsider the above decision contending that petitioner is not exempt from filing his declaration of intention, and has not complied with Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization La w, and that his witnesses are not competent and credible persons within the cont emplation of law. On December 1, 1965 petitioner filed a motion alleging therein that more than t wo (2) years had elapsed since the decision and that he has complied with all th e conditions and requisites, he then prays that after hearing, the decision be e xecuted and he be allowed to take his oath as a Filipino citizen. Issues: 1. Was the second amended petition published in accordance with Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which requires that the petition itself must be pub lished? 2. Did the petitioner successfully stated that he is of good moral character by stating in his amended petition I believe in the principles underlying the Philipp ine Constitution. I have conducted myself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of my residence in the Philippines in my relations with the constituted Government as well as with the community in which I am living ? 3. Did he sufficiently complied with the requirement of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law that the petitioner must allege therein his present and forme r places of residence? 4. Was he exempt from declaring his intention? 5. Did the petitioner successfully renounced his Chinese Citizenship? Held:. 1. The second amended petition was not published. Neither were the original and the amended petitions. What the Office of the Clerk of Court did was to prepare and issuenoticesof the petition. This is not sufficient compliancecontemplated in the legal provision. It was said notices alone which were ordered to be publishe d and posted. Non-compliance with the requirements thereof,constitutes a fatal de fect. As a consequence, the lower court acquired no jurisdiction to hear this ca se and the decision appealed from is null and void. 2. Petitioner did not specifically allege that he is of good moral character whi ch is one of the requirements of Citizenship as provided for in Section 2 of the

Revised Naturalization Law. He did not refer to it in any manner in the answers he gave. It has been held that to establish the qualifications that the applica nt must be of good moral character and must have conducted himself in a proper a nd irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence, the characte r witnesses must be in a position to testify on the character and good moral con duct of the applicant during the entire period of the latter's stay in the Phili ppines as provided by law. In the instant case, the witnesses utterly failed to do that. 3. No, all his allegations were isufficent in specifications. He stated that he studied in Manila, but did not revealed where in Manila he resided during that time. He also declared that he was in Manila from June 1939-1942 but just gave h is address as Salazar Street which is very vague where in Manila this street is. T here is no way it would facilitate the checking up on the activities of the peti tioner which are material to the proceedings. Petitioner deliberately suppressed vital information to make it extremely difficult for the government authorities to locate his place of residence and check on his activities therein during suc h time. Besides, a careful reading of the transcripts of the testimony of petiti oner on direct examination reveals that petitioner did not mention Salazar Stree t at all. Thus, on this ground alone, his petition should fail. 4. Petitioner was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Upon carefu l reading of his claim for exemption, the facts revealed that it he cannot claim exemption from filing the declaration of intention. 5. Revised Naturalization Law requires that before a certificate of naturalizati on is issued, the petitioner shall renounce "absolutely and forever all allegian ce and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty." It is s ettled that a Chinese national cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the Philipp ines unless he has complied with the laws of Nationalist China requiring previou s permission of its Minister of Interior for the renunciation of his nationality .In the instant case, petitioner did not offer any evidence to prove that he obta ined such permission.