G.R. No.

175430 June 18, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.KERRY LAO ONG, Respondent.

Facts
Respondent Ong filed a petition for naturalization in the trial court and the OSG
authorized the prosecutor to appear on its behalf.
Respondent Ong is a pure Chinese of Chinese parents and married to a Chinese
citizen and bore 4 children.
 He is registered as a resident alien and possesses an alien certificate of
registration and a native-born certificate of residence from the Bureau of
Immigration and continuously and permanently residing in the Philippines from
birth up to the present.
 He can speak and write in Tagalog, English, Cebuano, and Amoy.
 Ong has lived 5 addresses in Cebu, worked as a businessman or manager with
average annual income of P150,000.00 through tax returns from 1994 to 1997 but
did not specify or describe the nature of his business;
 socializes with Filipinos and celebrated Sinulog, fiestas, and occasional events,;
 a member of the Alert/ React VII Communications Group and the Masonic
organization;
 of sound physical and mental health based on health certificate;
 obtained clearances of no criminal records from NBI, PNP, trial court, and
barangays;
 presented Rudy Carvajal (Carvajal) and Bernard Sepulveda (Sepulveda), vice
mayor of Borbon, as his character witnesses which testified that Ong is very helpful
in the community and adopts the Filipino culture, known Ong since the 1970s since
they were high school classmates, Ong is morally irreproachable and possesses all
the qualifications to be a good citizen of the Philippines which the witness is a
businessman engaged in leasing office spaces.
Trial court granted the petition that possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided for by law to become a citizen of the Philippines. But
Appealed by the Republic through OSG due to failure to prove that he possesses a
known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation as required under Section 2,
fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law, owing property and family, but
DISMISSED by CA also Motion for Reconsideration because although no lucrative
employment, the petition for naturalization was filed in 1996, which is already ten
years ago. It is of judicial notice that the value of the peso has taken a considerable
plunge in value since that time up to the present. Nonetheless, if We consider the
income earned at that time, the ages of the children of the [respondent], the
employment of his wife, We can say that there is an appreciable margin of his income
over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support.
Issue
WON respondent Ong has proved that he has some known lucrative trade, profession
or lawful occupation in accordance with Section 2, fourth paragraph of the Revised
Naturalization Law.

Ruling
The courts must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings are imbued with
the highest public interest. Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly
construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. The burden of proof
rests upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements
of law.
In the case at bar, the controversy revolves around respondent Ong’s compliance with
the qualification found in Section 2, fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization
Law, which provides:
SECTION 2. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the
following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five
thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade,
profession, or lawful occupation;
 His lucrative income should permit "him and the members of his family to live
with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and
consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization.”
 That his or her spouse’s income should not be included in the assessment, to
qualify him to become a Filipino citizen."
 That he qualifications must be determined as of the time of the filing of his
petition.
Going over the decisions of the courts below, the Court finds that the foregoing
guidelines have not been observed.
 To recall, respondent Ong and his witnesses testified that Ong is a
businessman but none of them identified Ong’s business or described its nature.
The dearth of documentary evidence compounds the inadequacy of the testimonial
evidence.
 The applicant provided no documentary evidence, like business permits,
registration, official receipts, or other business records to demonstrate his
proprietorship or participation in a business.
 Instead, Ong relied on his general assertions to prove his possession of "some
known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation."
 Bare, general assertions cannot discharge the burden of proof that is required
of an applicant for naturalization.
The Court finds the appellate court’s decision erroneous.
 First, it should not have included the spouse’s income in its assessment of
Ong’s lucrative income.
 Second, it failed to consider the following circumstances which have a bearing
on Ong’s expenses vis-à-vis his income: (a) that Ong does not own real property; (b)
that his proven average gross annual income around the time of his application,
which was only ₱106,000.00, had to provide for the education of his four minor
children; and (c) that Ong’s children were all studying in exclusive private schools in
Cebu City.
 Third, the CA did not explain how it arrived at the conclusion that Ong’s income
had an appreciable margin over his known expenses.
Ong’s gross income might have been sufficient to meet his family’s basic needs, but
there is simply no sufficient proof that it was enough to create an appreciable margin
of income over expenses. Without an appreciable margin of his income over his
family’s expenses, his income cannot be expected to provide him and his family "with
adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work."
Clearly, therefore, respondent Ong failed to prove that he possesses the qualification of
a known lucrative trade provided in Section 2, fourth paragraph, of the Revised
Naturalization Law.
The Court finds no merit in respondent’s submission that a Rule 45 petition precludes
a review of the factual findings of the courts below. In the first place, the trial court
and appellate court’s decisions contain conclusions that are bereft of evidentiary
support or factual basis, which is a known exception to the general rule that only
questions of law may be entertained in a Rule 45 petition.
In fact, jurisprudence holds that the entire records of the naturalization case are open
for consideration in an appeal to this Court.100 Indeed,
"[a] naturalization proceeding is so infused with public interest that it has been
differently categorized and given special treatment. x x x [U]nlike in ordinary judicial
contest, the granting of a petition for naturalization does not preclude the reopening of
that case and giving the government another opportunity to present new evidence. A
decision or order granting citizenship will not even constitute res judicata to any
matter or reason supporting a subsequent judgment cancelling the certification of
naturalization already granted, on the ground that it had been illegally or fraudulently
procured. For the same reason, issues even if not raised in the lower court may be
entertained on appeal. As the matters brought to the attention of this Court x x x
involve facts contained in the disputed decision of the lower court and admitted by the
parties in their pleadings, the present proceeding may be considered adequate for the
purpose of determining the correctness or incorrectness of said decision, in the light of
the law and extant jurisprudence."
In the case at bar, there is even no need to present new evidence. A careful
review of the extant records suffices to hold that respondent Ong has not proven his
possession of a "known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation" to qualify for
naturalization.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition of the Republic of the Philippines is

GRANTED. The Decision dated May 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 74794 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Naturalization of Kerry Lao
Ong is DENIED for failure to comply with Section 2, fourth paragraph, of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
SO ORDERED.