REPUBLIC VS DELA ROSA

FACTS: September 20, 1991 - Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization under the
Commonwealth Act No. 63 before the RTC Manila.October 7, 1991 - Judge dela Rosa set the
petition for hearing on March 16, 1992, and directed the publication of the said order and
petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation, for 3 consecutive
weeks, the last publication of which should be at least 6 months before the date of the said
hearing.
January 14, 1992 - Frivaldo asked the Judge to cancel the March 16 hearing and move it to
January 24, 1992, citing his intention to run for public office in the May 1992 elections. Judge
granted the motion and the hearing was moved to February 21. No publication or copy was
issued about the order. February 21, 1992 - the hearing proceeded. February 27, 1992 Judge rendered the assailed Decision and held that Frivaldo is readmitted as a citizen of the
Republic of the Philippines by naturalization. Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and
Section 25 of the Interim Rules, to annul the decision made on February 27, 1992 and to
nullify the oath of allegiance taken by Frivaldo on same date.

ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo was duly re-admitted to his citizenship as a Filipino.

RULING: No. The supreme court ruled that Private respondent is declared NOT a citizen of
the Philippines and therefore disqualified from continuing to serve as governor of the
Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate his office and to surrender the same to the
Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once this decision becomes final and executory.
The proceedings of the trial court was marred by the following irregularities:
(1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled date of hearing, without a
publication of the order advancing the date of hearing, and the petition itself;
(2) the petition was heard within six months from the last publication of the petition;

(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the finality of the judgment;
and
(4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the two-year waiting period.