The Solicitor General, in representation of  the Government, seeks  the reversal of the  decision of the Court of First Instance of  Manila  granting  the petition of  the appellee  for naturalization, on the ground  that the  trial court erred (1) in finding that the petitioner-applicant has complied  with  all the requirements  of the  law; (2)  in finding  that the  petitioner has  all the qualifications for the grant of Filipino citizenship; and  (3) in granting him such citizenship. "  

Carefully considered, the evidence of record fully justifies the  following findings of fact of the  trial court:

"That the petitioner was  born,  in  Chingkang, China, on  May 5, 1914; that he came to the Philippines  for the first time in  1932, arriving at tile Port of Manila on  board the vessel 'Ang Kian,' and has continuously resided  in the Philippines except  for short trips to China in 1946 and in 1948, where he stayed each time for less than  a year, and then to Hongkong in 1950 and in 1952, where he stayed each time for less  than a month, but returning to the Philippines after each of those trips and  in the City of Manila for a term  of one year at least immediately  preceding the  date of  the filing' of the petition; that at present, ho is living at No. 362 Camba St., San Nicolas, Manila; that he  was engaged in the importation business  in the  year 1950 and  3951, from which  he  derived an average annual  income  of P6,000,  and  that since  1953 up to  the present he  is employed as agent of Ong  Sing with an annual salary of P2,400;  that he is married to  Chua Sio Ha who was born in Chingkang, China, by whom he  has two children, namely, Ong Yok Him and Luz Ong, both born also in Chingkang, China, on November 5, 1947 and on December 16, 1949, respectively; that his wife and two children have never visited the Philippines, as they  continuously resided up to the present in Chingkang, China;  that the  two children are not enrolled in  any school  because  they  are not yet of school age;  that he can speak  and write English and Tagalog; that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has  conducted himself in a proper  and irreproachable  manner during the entire period  of  his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted authorities and with the community in which he is living;  that  he  has mingled socially  with Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to  learn and embrace their customs, traditions and  ideals; that he is not opposed  to organized government or affiliated with any association  or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing  all organized governments; that he  is not defending or teaching  the necessity  or  propriety of violence, personal  assault or assassination for the success and predominance of men's ideas; that he is  not a polygamist nor a believer in  the practice of polygamy; that  he has not been  convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;  that he  is not suffering from  any  incurable contagious  disease;  that the  nation of which he is a citizen or, subject  (Nationalist Republic of  China) is not  at war with  the Philippine; that it is his intention in good faith to become a citizen of ,the Philippines  and to renounce  absolutely and forever  all  allegiance  and fidelity to  any foreign  prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, particularly to  the Republic of China  of which  at this time he is a citizen or subject;  that  he has resided continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of this petition up to the present time, and will do so up to the time of his final admission as Filipino citizen;  and that  he  has not heretofore made  or filed any petition for citizenship with  any other court.
 
"The petitioner presented as his  witnesses  former Congressman Cesar Miraflor and  Assistant City Fiscal Pedro Asis, Jr., of Manila, who testified that they have  known the  applicant for  more than ten years; that  to their personal knowledge, the petitioner has been and is a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, attached to the  principles underlying the  Philippine Constitution and well disposed to the good order  and happiness of the Philippines; and that they recommend the petitioner to become a Filipino citizen."

Under the first assignment of error, it is  contended  by the Solicitor  General  that the  case should  be dismissed because  there was no  due  publication of  the notice  of hearing  as required in section 9  of the Revised Naturalization Law, for said notice  was only published once  in the Official Gazette No.  7, Vol.  49,  issued  in July,  1953, and therefore  the  requirement of   the law  that said  notice should be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official  Gazette has not  been complied with.  The notice of  hearing was, however,  published once  in the Official  Gazette and for three  consecutive  weeks  in the Voz de  Manila, viz.; on  July 28, August 2 and August 8 of 1953, and the  reason  why it has not been published for three consecutive weeks in the Official  Gazette was that it  is now published  monthly and  not weekly; hence the appellee  contends that there  has been a  substantial compliance with the law  in regard  to  the publication of the notice of  hearing  in  the present case and therefore the application should  be  granted.

Section 9 of  the Revised Naturalization  Law provides as follows:

Sec. 9.  Notification and appearance. Immediately upon the filing' of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk  of the court  to publish the same at petitioner's expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the  Official Guzette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation  in  the province "where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition  and a general notice  of the hearing be posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office  or in the  building  where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, birthplace and  residence  of  the petitioner, the date  of his arrival in the  Philippines, the  name of the  witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to  introduce in support of his petition, and the date of  the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days  from  the date of the last publication of the  notice.  *  *   *"

It could be  seen  that, under the  aforequoted  section  of the Revised Naturalization  Law, the  notice  of  hearing  of the application  for citizenship should be  published  three y  times  in  the Official  Gazette, or, in  the  language of the law, "once a week for three consecutive weeks and so  in  the order. of publication of the  notice of hearing of the present case, it was enjoined that the same be made  "once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in the Voz de Manila."   The notice of hearing of this case should therefore  have been published three times not only in the  Voz  de Manila  hut in the Official  Gazette  as well.   And there being  only one  publication of said notice of hearing in this  case  the Official Gazette,  the  same is clearly  incomplete  and therefore  insufficient  to confer  jurisdiction to the  court a quo to try the case and  grant the petition.   It  is  argued,  however,  that there has been it   a substantial  compliance with law  because  the notice   of hearing in question was  published three times in the Voz  de Manila and once in the.  Official Gazette;  but since the  law expressly  provides that the notice of hearing  be published three times, this should  be strictly observed, for, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General in his  brief,

"The  publication required by law in the  Official  Gazette and in a newspaper of  general circulation is a means of screening aliens applying for Filipino citizenship by giving  the public  a chance to come  forward and protest  the grant of such citizenship if  they possess  any information  derogatory to the  applicant.  The  official organ of the government  caters to  the officials  and employees of the government  and to the lawyers as well.  These people, by reason of their  occupation  are  in  a better position to acquire knowledge of aliens running afoul of the  law than  the average reader who scans the newspaper for news.  If the law was. not after the number of times the notice  is published  in the Official Gazette, it could have expressed in plain words that a single publication in the Official Gazette  would suffice;  but  when  the  law  expressly  provides  its publication 'once a week  for  3 consecutive  weeks' the  intention to give the reading public 3 chances  to  read that item is very clear. A single publication therefore of the  notice  whore the  law requires 3 is an  incomplete  publication, and  an incomplete publication is not a  valid  publication.  The grant  of   citizenship  is  only a  mere privilege,  and a strict compliance with law  on the  part of the applicant is essential."

Petitioner may contend, however, that the law provides that  the publication  of  the notice of hearing  should  be made for  three  consecutive  weeks  and  as  the- Official Gazette is now being published  monthly,, and not weekly as it was  before,  petitioner cannot actually comply with law;  and because he had the notice of hearing  in question published,  once, in the Official  Gazette, he should be  given the benefit of  having followed the law.   This  contention does not merit  serious consideration.   While it is true that the notice  of hearing  in question  cannot actually be published for  three  consecutive weeks  in  the  Official Gazette, it is  no less true that said notice may be published  three times consecutively, although not weekly, in the Official Gazette, and  because the true  intent of  the law is  that the said notice be  published 3  times, it is our considered opinion that in the instant case the single publication of the notice of hearing in question is  not  a sufficient compliance with law.

And in view of the foregoing considerations,  we find  it unnecessary to discuss the question raised in the second assignment of error.

Wherefore,  the decision  appealed from  is hereby reversed and the petition dismissed without prejudice,  with costs against the appellee.

Bengzon,  Padilla,  Montemayor,  Reyes,  A.,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception,  and Reyes,  J. B. L., JJ,, concur.