You are on page 1of 1

Po vs Republic, 40 scra 37, G.R. No.

Juanita Po Petitioner Po, a chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization. 11-Mar-64 15-Apr-66 CFI's decision: granted the petition. Po filed a motion to be allowed to take the requisite oath of allegiance, after the notice and hearing prescribed by law therefor. Contention of Po: 1) PO claimed to be exempt from the requirement of making a declaration of intention, on the grounds that: (a)she had been born in the Philippines and (b) received her primary education 14-Nov-66 CFI's appealed order: allowing her to take said oath and directing the issuance of the certificate of naturalization Gov't filed for motion for reconsideration secondary education in Manila in Surigao del Norte Contention of SG is that the lower court: (1) had no jurisdiction to entertain appellee’s petition for naturalization because (a) she had failed to file a declaration of intention, although not exempt therefrom, (b) the petition was not published in accordance with law, and (c) is fatally defective; (2) had erred in issuing the order appealed from, inasmuch as (a) the appellee has “no lucrative income,” (b) there are indicia derogatory to her moral character, (c) her character witnesses are not sufficiently qualified therefor, and (d) it has not been duly established that the Chinese government had permitted her to give up her Chinese nationality. Rep. of Phil. Oppositor Juanita Po Appellee

Rep. of Phil. Appellant Sol. Gen. filed for an appeal

college of education in UST, Manila private institutions which are not limited to any race or nation or nationality and duly recognized by the Government of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum.

CFI denied the motion for reconsideration

2) a "notice" was published in the “Nueva Era” Issue WON a "notice" published in a newspaper is sufficient in order to afford the court jurisdiction over the case Held No, the publication of such notice is insufficient to vest, in the trial court, jurisdiction to hear and decide this case. section 9 of Com. Act No. 473 requires that the “petition” for naturalization be published “in the O.G. and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides … .” In the case at bar, what was published was not appellee’s “petition” for naturalization, but a “notice” summarizing the allegations of said pleading. Besides, said notice was published in the “Nueva Era,” and the records do not show that this newspaper is of general circulation in Surigao del Norte, the province in which the appellee resides. The decision and the ordered appeal were declared null and void. The petition of naturalization was dismissed. Summary: When there is a defect in the publication of the petition, such defect deprives the court of jurisdiction.