Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
749
OF THE
APPEALS,
________________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
750
750
Same; Same; Same; Same; The reason for the rule prohibiting
the admission of evidence which has not been formally offered is to
afford the opposite party the chance to object to their admissibility.
Petitioner claims that as a result of the failure of the State to
present and formally offer its documentary evidence before the trial
court, he was denied the right to object against their authenticity,
effectively depriving him of his fundamental right to procedural due
process. We are not persuaded. Indeed, the reason for the rule
prohibiting the admission of evidence which has not been formally
offered is to afford the opposite party the chance to object to their
admissibility. Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the
right to object to the authenticity of the documents submitted to the
appellate court by the State. He could have included his objections,
as he, in fact, did, in the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals.
Same; Same; Public Documents; Where a party fails to make a
satisfactory showing of any flaw or irregularity that may cast doubt
on the authenticity of documents which have been executed under
oath, the court may rely on them.The Court notes that these
documentsnamely, the petition in SCN Case No. 031767,
petitioners marriage contract, the joint affidavit executed by him
and his wife, and petitioners income tax returnsare all public
documents. As such, they have been executed under oath. They are
thus reliable. Sinoe petitioner failed to make a satisfactory showing
of any flaw or irregularity that may cast doubt on the authenticity
of these documents, it is our conclusion that the appellate court did
not err in relying upon them.
Naturalization; Statutory Construction; It is settled that
naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed
in favor of the government and against the applicant.The above
discussion would have been enough to dispose of this case, but to
settle all the issues raised, we shall briefly discuss the effect of
petitioners failure to include the address J.M. Basa St., Iloilo in
his petition, in accordance with 7, CA. No. 473. This address
appears on petitioners Immigrant Certificate of Residence, a
document which forms part of the records as Annex A of his 1989
petition for naturalization. Petitioner admits that he failed to
mention said address in his petition, but argues that since the
Immigrant Certificate of Residence containing it had been fully
published, with the petition and the other annexes, such publication
constitutes substantial compliance with 7. This is allegedly
751
__________________
1
752
753
754
11
755
petitioner Ong Chia and his wife are living on the allowance given
to them by their children. The monthly pension given by the elder
children of the applicant cannot be added to his income to make it
lucrative because like bonuses, commissions and allowances, said
pensions are contingent, speculative and precarious . . .
756
13
757
15
16
17
758
20
759
set forth in
the petition his present and former places of
23
residence. This provision and the rule of strict application
of the law in naturalization cases defeat petitioners
argument of substantial compliance with the requirement
under the Revised Naturalization Law. On this ground
alone, the instant petition ought to be denied.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED and the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena and De
Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.A former citizen who opts to reacquire
Philippine citizenship thru naturalization under the
Revised Naturalization Law is duty bound to follow the
procedure prescribed by said law, and it is not for him to
decide and to select the requirements which he believes are
applicable to his case and discard those which he believes
are inconvenient or merely of nuisance value. (Republic vs.
De la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785 [1994])
An applicant for naturalization may only take his oath
of allegiance after the Solicitor General finds that within
the period of two years from the date the decision granting
citi____________________
21
22
Republic, 104 Phil. 889 (1958) and Co. v. Republic, 108 Phil. 265 (1960).
23
760