Republic of the Philippines vs.

Kerry Lao Ong On November 23, 2001, the trial court granted Ong’s petition. Among
G.R. No. 175430 other things, the trial court held that:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, xxxx
- versus - By the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the
KERRY LAO ONG, Respondent. [respondent], the following facts had been established.
xxxx
DECISION x x x [Respondent] is a businessman/business manager engaged in
DEL CASTILLO, J.: lawful trade and business since 1989 from which he derives an average
Naturalization laws are strictly construed in the government’s favor and annual income of more than One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
against the applicant. The applicant carries the burden of proving his full (Exhibit U, V, W, and X with sub-markings); x x x
compliance with the requirements of law. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads:
Before the Court is the Republic’s appeal of the appellate court’s From the evidence presented by [respondent], this Court believes and so
Decision holds that [respondent] possesses all the qualifications and none of the
 dated May 13, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 74794, which affirmed the trial disqualifications provided for by law to become a citizen of the
court’s grant of citizenship to respondent Kerry Lao Ong (Ong). The Philippines.
Court of Appeals (CA) held: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
With all the foregoing, We find no cogent reason to reverse the decision Accordingly, [respondent] KERRY LAO ONG is hereby admitted as
of the court a quo. citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, 7th SO ORDERED.
Judicial Region, Branch 9 in its Decision dated November 23, 2001, is Republic’s Appeal
AFFIRMED in toto and the instant appeal is DISMISSED. On January 31, 2003, the Republic, through the Solicitor General,
SO ORDERED. appealed to the CA. The Republic faulted the trial court for granting
Factual Antecedents Ong’s petition despite his failure to prove that he possesses a known
On November 26, 1996, respondent Ong, then 38 years old, lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation as required under
 filed a Petition for Naturalization. The case was docketed as Nat. Case Section 2, fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law.
No. 930 and assigned to Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu The Republic posited that, contrary to the trial court’s finding,
City. As decreed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by respondent Ong did not prove his allegation that he is a
Republic Act No. 530, known as the Revised Naturalization Law, the businessman/business manager earning an average income of
petition was published in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general ₱150,000.00 since 1989. His income tax returns belie the value of his
circulation, and posted in a public place for three consecutive weeks, income. Moreover, he failed to present evidence on the nature of his
 six months before the initial hearing. The Office of the Solicitor General profession or trade, which is the source of his income. Considering that
entered its appearance and authorized the city prosecutor to appear on he has four minor children (all attending exclusive private schools), he
its behalf. Accordingly, Fiscals Ester Veloso and Perla Centino has declared no other property and/or bank deposits, and he has not
participated in the proceedings below. declared owning a family home, his alleged income cannot be considered
Respondent Ong was born at the Cebu General Hospital in Cebu City to lucrative. Under the circumstances, the Republic maintained that
Chinese citizens Siao Hwa Uy Ong and Flora Ong on March 4, 1958. respondent Ong is not qualified as he does not possess a definite and
He is registered as a resident alien and possesses an alien certificate of existing business or trade.
registration and a native-born certificate of residence from the Bureau of Respondent Ong conceded that the Supreme Court has adopted a higher
Immigration. He has been continuously and permanently residing standard of income for applicants for naturalization. He likewise
 in the Philippines from birth up to the present. Ong can speak and write conceded that the legal definition of lucrative income is the existence of
in Tagalog, English, Cebuano, and Amoy. He took his elementary and an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses. It is his position
high school studies at the Sacred Heart School for Boys in Cebu City, that his income, together with that of his wife, created an appreciable
where social studies, Pilipino, religion, and the Philippine Constitution margin over their expenses. Moreover, the steady increase in his income,
are taught. He then obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science in as evidenced in his tax returns, proved that he is gainfully employed.
Management from the Ateneo De Manila University on March 18, 1978. The appellate court dismissed the Republic’s appeal. It explained:
On February 1, 1981, he married Griselda S. Yap, also a Chinese In the case at bar, the [respondent] chose to present [pieces of evidence]
citizen. They have four children, namely, Kerri Gail (born on April 15, which relates [sic] to his lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation.
1983), Kimberley Grace (born on May 15, 1984), Kyle Gervin (born on Judging from the present standard of living and the personal
November 4, 1986), and Kevin Griffith (born on August 21, 1993), who circumstances of the [respondent] using the present time as the index
were all born and raised in the Philippines. The children of school age for the income stated by the [respondent], it may appear that the
were enrolled at the Sacred Heart School for Boys and Sacred Heart [respondent] has no lucrative employment. However, We must be
School for Girls. At the time of the filing of the petition, Ong, his wife, mindful that the petition for naturalization was filed in 1996, which is
and children were living at No. 55 Eagle Street, Sto. Niño Village, already ten years ago. It is of judicial notice that the value of the peso has
Banilad, Cebu City. taken a considerable plunge in value since that time up to the present.
Ong has lived at the following addresses: Nonetheless, if We consider the income earned at that time, the ages of
1. Manalili Street, Cebu City (when Ong was in Grade 2) the children of the [respondent], the employment of his wife, We can say
2. Crystal Compound Guadalupe, Cebu City (until 1970) that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to
3. No. 671 A.S. Fortuna Street, Cebu City (until 1992) be able to provide for an adequate support.
4. No. 55 Eagle Street, Sto. Niño Village, Banilad, Cebu City (until 1998); The appellate court denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration
 and in its Resolution dated November 7, 2006.
5. No. 50 Roselle Street, North Town Homes, Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu Issue
City (present). Whether respondent Ong has proved that he has some known lucrative
Ong alleged in his petition that he has been a "businessman/business trade, profession or lawful occupation in accordance with Section 2,
manager" since 1989, earning an average annual income of fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law.
₱150,000.00. Petitioner’s Arguments
 When he testified, however, he said that he has been a businessman Petitioner assigns as error the appellate court’s ruling that "there is an
since he graduated from college in 1978. Moreover, Ong did not specify appreciable margin of (respondent’s) income over his expenses as to be
or describe the nature of his business.  able to provide for an adequate support." The Republic contends that the
As proof of his income, Ong presented four tax returns for the years CA’s conclusion is not supported by the evidence on record and by the
1994 to 1997. Based on these returns, Ong’s gross annual income was prevailing law.
₱60,000.00 for 1994; ₱118,000.00 for 1995; ₱118,000.00 for 1996; and The only pieces of evidence presented by Ong to prove that he qualifies
₱128,000.00 for 1997. under Section 2, fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law,
Respondent further testified that he socializes with Filipinos; celebrates are his tax returns for the years 1994 to 1997, which show that Ong earns
the Sinulog, fiestas, birthdays, and Christmas. He is a member of the from ₱60,000.00 to ₱128,000.00 annually. This declared income is far
Alert/ React VII Communications Group and the Masonic organization. from the legal requirement of lucrative income. It is not sufficient to
Respondent Ong presented a health certificate to prove that he is of provide for the needs of a family of six, with four children of school age.
sound physical and mental health. As shown by the clearances from the Moreover, none of these tax returns describes the source of Ong’s
National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police, the income, much less can they describe the lawful nature thereof. The
trial courts, and the barangay, he has no criminal record or pending Republic also noted that Ong did not even attempt to describe what
criminal charges. Respondent presented Rudy Carvajal (Carvajal) and business he is engaged in. Thus, the trial and appellate courts’ shared
Bernard Sepulveda (Sepulveda) as his character witnesses. At that time, conclusion that Ong is a businessman is grounded entirely on
Sepulveda was the vice-mayor of Borbon, Cebu. He has known Ong since speculation, surmises or conjectures.
1970 because Ong is the close friend of Sepulveda’s brother. He testified The Republic thus prays for the reversal of the appellate court’s Decision
that Ong is very helpful in the community and adopts the Filipino and the denial of Ong’s petition for naturalization.
culture. Respondent’s Arguments
Meanwhile, Carvajal testified that he has known Ong since the 1970s Respondent asks for the denial of the petition as it seeks a review of
because they were high school classmates. He testified that Ong is factual findings, which review is improper in a Rule 45 petition.
morally irreproachable and possesses all the qualifications to be a good  He further submits that his tax returns support the conclusion that he is
citizen of the Philippines. Carvajal is a businessman engaged in leasing engaged in lucrative trade.
office spaces. Our Ruling
The courts must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings are was also employed at that time. It then concluded that there is an
imbued with the highest public interest. Naturalization laws should be appreciable margin of Ong’s income over his expenses.
rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and The Court finds the appellate court’s decision erroneous. First, it should
against the applicant. The burden of proof rests upon the applicant to not have included the spouse’s income in its assessment of Ong’s
show full and complete compliance with the requirements of law. lucrative income. Second, it failed to consider the following
In the case at bar, the controversy revolves around respondent Ong’s circumstances which have a bearing on Ong’s expenses vis-à-vis his
compliance with the qualification found in Section 2, fourth paragraph income: (a) that Ong does not own real property; (b) that his proven
of the Revised Naturalization Law, which provides: average gross annual income around the time of his application, which
SECTION 2. Qualifications. - Subject to section four of this Act, any was only ₱106,000.00, had to provide for the education of his four
person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the minor children; and (c) that Ong’s children were all studying in exclusive
Philippines by naturalization: private schools in Cebu City. Third, the CA did not explain how it arrived
xxxx at the conclusion that Ong’s income had an appreciable margin over his
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than known expenses.
five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known Ong’s gross income might have been sufficient to meet his family’s basic
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation; needs, but there is simply no sufficient proof that it was enough to create
xxxx an appreciable margin of income over expenses. Without an appreciable
Based on jurisprudence, the qualification of "some known lucrative margin of his income over his family’s expenses, his income cannot be
trade, profession, or lawful occupation" means "not only that the person expected to provide him and his family "with adequate support in the
having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work."
must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there Clearly, therefore, respondent Ong failed to prove that he possesses the
is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to qualification of a known lucrative trade provided in Section 2, fourth
provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, paragraph, of the Revised Naturalization Law.
sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one’s becoming the object The Court finds no merit in respondent’s submission that a Rule 45
of charity or a public charge." His income should permit "him and the petition precludes a review of the factual findings of the courts below.
members of his family to live with reasonable comfort, in accordance  In the first place, the trial court and appellate court’s decisions contain
with the prevailing standard of living, and consistently with the conclusions that are bereft of evidentiary support or factual basis, which
demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization." is a known exception to the general rule that only questions of law may
Moreover, it has been held that in determining the existence of a be entertained in a Rule 45 petition.
lucrative Moreover, a review of the decisions involving petitions for naturalization
income, the courts should consider only the applicant’s income; his or shows that the Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual
her spouse’s income should not be included in the assessment. The existence of the applicant’s qualifications. In fact, jurisprudence holds
spouse’s additional income is immaterial "for under the law the that the entire records of the naturalization case are open for
petitioner should be the one to possess ‘some known lucrative trade, consideration in an appeal to this Court.
profession or lawful occupation’ to qualify him to become a Filipino  Indeed, "[a] naturalization proceeding is so infused with public interest
citizen." Lastly, the Court has consistently held that the applicant’s that it has been differently categorized and given special treatment. x x x
qualifications must be determined as of the time of the filing of his [U]nlike in ordinary judicial contest, the granting of a petition for
petition. naturalization does not preclude the reopening of that case and giving
Going over the decisions of the courts below, the Court finds that the the government another opportunity to present new evidence. A
foregoing guidelines have not been observed. To recall, respondent Ong decision or order granting citizenship will not even constitute res
and his witnesses testified that Ong is a businessman but none of them judicata to any matter or reason supporting a subsequent judgment
identified Ong’s business or described its nature. The Court finds it cancelling the certification of naturalization already granted, on the
suspect that Ong did not even testify as to the nature of his business, ground that it had been illegally or fraudulently procured. For the same
whereas his witness Carvajal did with respect to his own (leasing of reason, issues even if not raised in the lower court may be entertained on
office space). A comparison of their respective testimonies is reproduced appeal. As the matters brought to the attention of this Court x x x involve
below: facts contained in the disputed decision of the lower court and admitted
Carvajal’s testimony by the parties in their pleadings, the present proceeding may be
Q: You said earlier that you are a businessman? considered adequate for the purpose of determining the correctness or
A: Yes, Sir. incorrectness of said decision, in the light of the law and extant
Q: How long have you been a businessman? jurisprudence." In the case at bar, there is even no need to present new
A: Since 1980. evidence. A careful review of the extant records suffices to hold that
Q: And what is the business you are engaged in? respondent Ong has not proven his possession of a "known lucrative
A: I am into leasing of office spaces. trade, profession or lawful occupation" to qualify for naturalization.
Kerry Lao Ong’s testimony WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition of the Republic of the
Q: What is your present occupation, Mr. Ong? Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 13, 2006 of the Court
A: Businessman. of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74794 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Q: Since when have you engaged in that occupation? Petition for Naturalization of Kerry Lao Ong is DENIED for failure to
A: After graduation from college. comply with Section 2, fourth paragraph, of Commonwealth Act No.
The dearth of documentary evidence compounds the inadequacy of the 473, as amended.
testimonial evidence. The applicant provided no documentary evidence, SO ORDERED.
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 paucity of evidence is unmistakable upon a reading of the trial
court’s decision. The trial court held that respondent Ong "is a
businessman engaged in lawful trade and business since 1989" but did
not cite the evidence, which supports such finding. After poring over the
records, the Court finds that the reason for the lack of citation is the
absence of evidence to support such conclusion. The trial court’s
conclusion that Ong has been a businessman since 1989 is only an
assertion found in Ong’s petition for naturalization. But, on the witness
stand, Ong did not affirm this assertion. Instead, he testified that he had
been a businessman since he graduated from college, which was in 1978.
Further, the trial court, citing Exhibits U, V, W, and X (which are Ong’s
tax returns), mistakenly found that Ong "derives an average annual
income of more than One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos." This
conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The cited tax returns show
that Ong’s gross annual income for the years 1994 to 1997 were
₱60,000.00, ₱118,000.00, ₱118,000.00, and ₱128,000.00, respectively.
The average annual income from these tax returns is ₱106,000.00 only,
not ₱150,000.00 as the trial court held. It appears that the trial court
again derived its conclusion from an assertion in Ong’s petition, but not
from the evidence.
As for the CA, it no longer ruled on the question whether Ong has a
known business or trade. Instead, it ruled on the issue whether Ong’s
income, as evidenced by his tax returns, can be considered lucrative in
1996. In determining this issue, the CA considered the ages of Ong’s
children, the income that he earned in 1996, and the fact that Ong’s wife