5. BURCA V. REPUBLIC FATCS: Petitioner Zita Ngo Burca was born in Gigaquit, Surigao on March 30, 1933.

Her father was Ngo Tay Suy and her mother was Dee See alias Lee Co, now both deceased and citizens of Nationalist Republic of China. She holds Native Born Certificate and Alien Certificate. Petitioner claims that she is of legal age, married to Florencio Burca, a Filipino citizen, and a resident of Real St., Ormoc City; that before her marriage, she was a Chinese citizen, subject of Nationalist China. She also asserts that she has all the qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications required under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473. This is a petition to declare Zita Ngo Burca as possessing all qualifications and none of the qualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for the purpose of cancelling her Alien Registry with the Bureau of Immigration. The solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to mention what is required under Section 7 naturalization law. ISSUE: Whether or not Zita Burca can be declared as a citizen of the Philippines. RULING: No. In the petition filed by the petitioner there are two flaws. First the petitioner failed to allege her former residence thus violating Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law and second, the petition was submitted solely on the testimony of the petitioner without any witnesses which violates the legal requirement of two witnesses. For these reasons the petitioner failed to acquire Filipino citizenship and her petition to cancel her Alien Registry was denied.

6. CO V. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL FACTS: The grandfather of respondent Ong came to the Philippines from China and his father was also born in China but grew up in Northern Samar and was naturalized as a Filipino when he was nine years old then later on married a Filipina. The respondent studied in Manila but he frequently went home to Northern Samar where he grew up. Later on he married a Filipina. The respondent is a registered voter of Laoang Northern Samar and voted there in the 1984 and 1986 elections. In 1987 the respondent ran in the elections for representative in the 2nd district of Northern Samar and won against the petitioner Co. The petitioner filed a petition questioning the citizenship of Ong. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal declared Ong as a natural-born Filipino citizen and a resident of Northern Samar. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is a natural-born Filipino? RULING:

Under Article IV Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution the respondent can be considered as a natural-born Filipino since he was born on 1907 and paragraph 3 Section 1 states that, those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are citizens of the Philippines and according to paragraph 2, natural-born citizens includes those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3. Being a registered voter and active participant in the elections constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship, because the respondent participated in such acts he has elected Philippine citizenship. It is also under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law since he was a minor at the time of the naturalization of his father the law itself had already elected Philippine citizenship for him.

7. CHAN TECK LAO V. REPUBLIC FACTS: The application for naturalization of Chan Teck Lao was denied on October 31, 1949. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court on June 15, 1950, reversed this Court's decision. More than 10 years later, the Office of the Solicitor General filed the petition for the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, raising the alleged jurisdictional question based on the subsequent Tan Ten Koc ruling 1960s (an applicant must present positive evidence the newspaper where his petition was published was indeed of general circulation in the province where the proceeding was had) that there was no showing or proof that the Nueva Era was a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Tarlac, where the petitioner then resided.

ISSUE: Whether or not the naturalization of Chan Teck Lao can be cancelled on the ground that he failed to follow the publication requirement. RULING: The 1967 leading case of Gan Tsitung v. Republic with former Chief Justice Concepcion as spokesman for the Court, indicates clearly the merit of this appeal by petitioner Chan Teck Lao from a lower court decision promulgated in 1965 ordering the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization that dates back to 1952 as a result of 1950 decision of this Tribunal sustaining his plea to become a Filipino. Gan Tsitung, in language plain and unequivocal makes manifest that no retroactive effect is to be given a judicial pronouncement that would impose on a party proceeded against in a denaturalization proceeding a requirement not in existence at a time that his application was heard and favorably acted on. There would be manifest unfairness in setting aside a decision that had subsequently become final and did lead to the grant of the citizenship. The decision of the lower court of January 20, 1965 ordering the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization of Chan Teck Lao as a Filipino citizen is set aside and reversed.

8. REPUBLIC VS. COKENG FACTS: The respondent only stated in his application for naturalization his address in Sto. Cristo Manila however he manifested in several public documents that he also resided in Quezon City and when asked about his residence in Quezon City he asserted that it was an address not a residence or it was set down in mistake or he purchased it for his parents. Respondent Francisco Cokeng seeks reconsideration of this Court's decision ordering the revocation of his certificate of naturalization. Bases of the decision were that in the original application for naturalization, said respondent failed to state all his former places of residence; and lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct, rendering the naturalization one that was illegally obtained. ISSUE: Whether or not the revocation of the respondents certificate of naturalization is valid. RULING: Under section 7 of the Naturalization Law expressly requires the applicant to state his "present and past place of residence", and the words used in the statute clearly show that the term residence was not employed in the sense of legal domicile, precisely because a person can only have one domicile. Good faith of the applicant in omitting one or more of his "present and past places of residence" in his application, becomes and is irrelevant for the purposes of the law. Whether the omission be in good or bad faith, the fact is that full inquiry as to the irreproachability of applicant's behaviour is thereby prevented, and the law's intent frustrated. Hence, this Court in a long line of decisions has invariably held that such omission is fatal to the application for naturalization It is apparent from the preceding considerations that the act of appellee Cokeng in not disclosing his residence in Quezon City, having deprived the State of opportunity to fully inquire into the applicant's conduct, rendered the decree of naturalization improvident and improper, being contrary to the requirements and policy of the law. While the decree had become final, the State is not thereby deprived of corrective action through denaturalization proceedings for the cancellation of the naturalization certificate. For under section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, "a competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate issued and its registration in the civil registry whenever it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally. Thus the revocation of respondents certificate of naturalization is valid.