Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Queto Vs Catolico

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    Judge Catolico nullified the naturalization of several petitioners, including Chua Tuan, claiming their oaths of allegiance were void because they were taken without notice to the Solicitor General. The petitioners filed for prohibition to correct the proceedings nullifying their naturalization. The issue was whether Judge Catolico had jurisdiction to reopen and review the grant of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Catolico did not have jurisdiction, as the initiative to cancel naturalization must come from the Solicitor General or provincial fiscal, not the judge acting as an inquisitor. The writ for prohibition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Queto Vs Catolico

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    182 views1 page
    Judge Catolico nullified the naturalization of several petitioners, including Chua Tuan, claiming their oaths of allegiance were void because they were taken without notice to the Solicitor General. The petitioners filed for prohibition to correct the proceedings nullifying their naturalization. The issue was whether Judge Catolico had jurisdiction to reopen and review the grant of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Catolico did not have jurisdiction, as the initiative to cancel naturalization must come from the Solicitor General or provincial fiscal, not the judge acting as an inquisitor. The writ for prohibition was granted.

    Original Title

    Queto vs Catolico

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Catolico nullified the naturalization of several petitioners, including Chua Tuan, claiming their oaths of allegiance were void because they were taken without notice to the Solicitor General. The petitioners filed for prohibition to correct the proceedings nullifying their naturalization. The issue was whether Judge Catolico had jurisdiction to reopen and review the grant of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Catolico did not have jurisdiction, as the initiative to cancel naturalization must come from the Solicitor General or provincial fiscal, not the judge acting as an inquisitor. The writ for prohibition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views1 page

    Queto Vs Catolico

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    Judge Catolico nullified the naturalization of several petitioners, including Chua Tuan, claiming their oaths of allegiance were void because they were taken without notice to the Solicitor General. The petitioners filed for prohibition to correct the proceedings nullifying their naturalization. The issue was whether Judge Catolico had jurisdiction to reopen and review the grant of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Catolico did not have jurisdiction, as the initiative to cancel naturalization must come from the Solicitor General or provincial fiscal, not the judge acting as an inquisitor. The writ for prohibition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Queto vs Catolico

    Facts:

    Queto and other petitioners received  notices from the CFI of Misamis Occidental notifying them
    that the oath of allegiance they   undertook  were void. The judge summoned the petitoners  to
    discuss the nullity of their naturalization on the basis that  their oaths  were taken  without  prior
    notices of the Solicitor General.

    The controversy started when  Chua Tuan requested for copies  of his certificate of
    naturalization  and oath of allegiance needed  with his transaction with the Bureau of lands.
    Instead of being issued the requested documents, his naturalization was nullified. The other
    petitioners were called  and the same actions were  taken against them, nullifying their
    naturalization.

    Judge Catolico  claimed that the petitioners  had not become Filipino citizens because their oath
    taking  was void for lack of notice to the Sol Gen therefore there are  no naturalization
    certificates  to be cancelled.

    Petitioners filed for prohibition to correct the  proceedings nullifying  their naturalization.

    Issue:

    Whether Judge Catolico  had jurisdiction  to reopen and review much more  declare void  the
    grant of citizenship of petitioners 

    Ruling:

    No, Judge Catolico had no jurisdiction to reopen and review and declare the grant of citizenship
    of the petitioners.

    As a general rule, a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or adversary and not
    inquisitorial in nature.  The court hears impartially involved parties and renders  judgment only
    after the trial. The judge  is not permitted to act as a n inquisitor, perform his own investigation
    and arrive at a conclusion

    In the cancellation of  naturalization certificate the initiative  must come from the Sol Gen or his
    representatives or by  the proper provincial fiscal  and not from Judge Catolico.

    The writ prayed for is granted, and the injunction heretofore issued by this Court is made
    permanent. The Solicitor General is, not precluded from taking such steps as may be warranted
    in connection with the naturalization cases of the petitioners.

    You might also like