Mohamed vs. Republic (G.R. No. 220674, December 2, 2021) (CASE DIGEST)

(APPEARED ON THE 2024 POLI BAR EXAM)

Mohamed vs. Republic (G.R. No. 220674, December 2, 2021)

Facts

Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed (Mohamed), a Sudanese national and convention refugee, sought Philippine naturalization. He filed his original Declaration of Intention (DOI) on June 2, 2006. On July 20, 2007, he filed a Supplemental DOI to incorporate his other name, “Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed Hussin”. Mohamed filed his Petition for Naturalization on August 21, 2007, which was only about a month after filing the Supplemental DOI. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted the petition.

Following the grant, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received the RTC’s order allowing the oath-taking on October 17, 2012, giving the government until November 16, 2012, to appeal. However, Mohamed took his Oath of Allegiance on October 24, 2012, before the expiration of the appeal period. The OSG appealed, arguing defects in the filing period, insufficient evidence of qualifications, and the premature oath. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and dismissed the petition without prejudice.

Issues

1. Whether the Petition for Naturalization was jurisdictionally defective for having been filed less than one year after the submission of the Supplemental Declaration of Intention, which contained substantial changes to the applicant’s name.
2. Whether Mohamed sufficiently established all his qualifications and the absence of disqualifications, specifically regarding his mental/physical fitness and the competency of his character witnesses.
3. Whether Mohamed’s status as a convention refugee excuses him from strict compliance with the statutory requirements of the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 473).
4. Whether the Oath of Allegiance taken by Mohamed before the expiration of the government’s period to appeal was valid and had legal effect.

Ruling

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.

The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated February 25, 2015 and Resolution dated September 4, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 100073 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that: (1) the case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court for reception of evidence and further proceedings; and (2) the Office of the Solicitor General is given a fresh period of one year from receipt of this Decision to conduct its investigation and submit compliance to the Regional Trial Court once such period has lapsed. SO ORDERED.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

1. Strict Construction of Naturalization Laws: The opportunity for a foreigner to become a citizen is a mere matter of grace, favor, or privilege extended by the State, not a vested right. Naturalization laws are strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. The applicant bears the burden of showing full and complete compliance with all statutory requirements.
2. Mandatory One-Year Filing Period (C.A. No. 473, Sec. 5): The filing of the Declaration of Intention one year prior to the filing of the petition is mandatory and an absolute prerequisite to naturalization. This period is designed to give the OSG sufficient time to investigate the applicant’s qualifications.
3. Effect of Substantial Change in DOI: When an applicant introduces a substantial change (like adding another name) in a Supplemental Declaration, the mandatory one-year waiting period for filing the naturalization petition must be calculated from the submission of the supplemental declaration. Premature filing is fatal and constitutes a jurisdictional defect.
4. Requirements for Credible Witnesses (C.A. No. 473, Sec. 7): Vouching witnesses must be “credible persons,” meaning they are known to be honest, upright, trustworthy, and possess intimate knowledge of the applicant to testify on their personal knowledge. Witnesses must testify on specific facts and events justifying the inference of qualifications; general statements, mere conclusions, or similarly worded affidavits are insufficient.
5. Refugee Status is Not a Waiver: While the Philippines is bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention (Art. 34) to facilitate the naturalization of refugees, this commitment does not amount to a blanket waiver of all legal requirements. The refugee must still comply with the statutory requirements unless the requirements are, by their nature, incapable of being fulfilled by a refugee (Art. 6).
6. Void Oath of Allegiance (C.A. No. 473, Sec. 12; R.A. No. 530): The oath of allegiance can be administered only after the decision granting naturalization has become final. If the oath is taken before the expiration of the government’s 30-day period to appeal, the administration of the oath is precipitate, null, and void, as it attempts to render the government’s appeal nugatory.

---

Sample Q&A

Question: Ahmed, a stateless person, filed his Declaration of Intention on May 1, 2024. Due to an urgent professional opportunity, he filed his Petition for Naturalization on November 1, 2024, arguing that his status as a refugee should exempt him from the one-year waiting period under the 1951 Refugee Convention. If the RTC grants his petition, and he takes the oath on the 20th day following notice of the RTC’s ruling, while the OSG’s appeal period is still running, what is the legal effect of his petition filing and his subsequent oath-taking?

Answer: Ahmed’s naturalization application is fatally flawed due to two separate jurisdictional defects:

1. Premature Filing of Petition: The petition is void because it was filed on November 1, 2024, less than one year after the Declaration of Intention was filed (May 1, 2024). Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 requires the Declaration of Intention to be filed one year prior to the petition. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. Although the Philippines is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, this international commitment does not amount to a blanket waiver of basic statutory requirements (like the filing period), especially where the requirement is not inherently impossible for a refugee to fulfill.
2. Void Oath of Allegiance: Ahmed’s oath, taken on the 20th day following the RTC ruling, is null and void. Pursuant to Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, the oath may only be administered after the lapse of the 30-day period for appeal, or after the decision has become final. Taking the oath prematurely attempts to render the Government’s right to appeal nugatory.

—– #MohamedVsRepublic #NaturalizationLaw #PhilippineCitizenship #StrictConstruction #DeclarationOfIntention #BurdenOfProof #RevisedNaturalizationLaw #CredibleWitnesses #OathOfAllegiance #PhilippineJurisprudencePhilippineLaw #LegalEducationPH #BarExam2025 #RemedialLaw #CivilLaw #PoliticalLaw #LegalDoctrine #CaseDigestPH #LawStudentPH #SupremeCourtPHLawLife #LegalCommunity #JusticeMatters #RuleOfLaw #KnowYourRights #LegalUpdates #Philippines #LawSchoolLife #LegalLearning #LawAndSociety