Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
563
the payroll of his familys zipper business. If this is the case, then
he may not be considered an employee thereof. One of the most
effective pieces of evidence to prove employment aside from the
employment contract itself and other documents such as daily
time records is a workers inclusion in the payroll. With this
admitted fact, one may not be faulted for believing that
respondents alleged employment in his familys zipper business
was contrived for the sole purpose of complying with the legal
requirements prior to obtaining Philippine citizenship.
Same; Good Moral Character; Respondents admitted false
declaration under oath contained in the August 2001 deed of sale
that he is a Filipino citizen which he did to secure the seamless
registration of the property in the name of his wife is further
proof of respondents lack of good moral character. It is also a
violation of the constitutional prohibition on ownership of lands by
foreign individuals.Respondents admitted false declaration
under oath contained in the August 2001 deed of sale that he is a
Filipino citizen which he did to secure the seamless
registration of the property in the name of his wife is further
proof of respondents lack of good moral character. It is also a
violation of the constitutional prohibition on ownership of lands
by foreign individuals. His defense that he unknowingly signed
the deed is unacceptable. First of all, as a foreigner living in a
foreign land, he should conduct himself accordingly in this
country with care, circumspect, and respect for the laws of the
host. Finally, as an educated and experienced businessman, it
must be presumed that he acted with due care and signed the
deed of sale with full knowledge of its import.
564
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This case reiterates the rule in naturalization cases that
when full and complete compliance with the requirements
of the Revised Naturalization Law, or Commonwealth Act
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
565
566
_______________
567
After trial, the trial court issued a September 24, 2007
Order10 granting respondents petition for naturalization,
decreeing thus:
_______________
568
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
11 Herein respondent.
569
570
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA, which was
docketed as C.A.G.R. CV No. 91213. Petitioner contended
in its Appellants Brief13 that respondent may not become a
naturalized Filipino citizen because: 1) he does not own
real estate in the Philippines; 2) he does not have some
known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; 3)
he is not gainfully employed, as he merely worked in the
business owned by his family and was merely given
allowances by his parents for the daily expenses of his
family; 4) in an August 2001 Deed of Sale14 covering a
parcel of land in Antipolo City he and his wife supposedly
purchased, respondent falsely misrepresented himself as a
Filipino citizen, thus exemplifying his lack of good moral
character; 5) his income tax returns for the years 2002,
2003 and 2004 reveal that his actual monthly income
differs from his monthly income as declared in his petition
for naturalization, leading to the conclusion that either he
is evading taxes or concealing the truth regarding his
income; and 6) on crossexamination by petitioner, he could
not cite any of the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution which he is supposed to believe in.
In a short Comment/Opposition15 to petitioners brief,
respondent admitted that while he was merely made to
sign the Deed of Sale which falsely represented him as a
Filipino
_______________
571
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
16 Herein respondent.
572
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
come Tax Returns filed for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and
2005. The extent of the operations of the petitionerappellees
family business and his involvement in the management thereof
are corroborated by the testimonies of Atty. Benjamin Moraleda
and Atty. Bella Ramona Antonano, both friends of the Huang
family and the petitionerappellee since 1987 and 1994,
respectively. Both witnesses also testified that the petitioner
appellee possessed all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a naturalized citizen of the
Philippines.
Secondly, the Solicitor General also averred that the petitioner
appellee failed to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during his entire stay or residence in the Philippines. It
noted that the petitionerappellee stated in his petition that he
earns an average of P15,000.00 per month but his declared gross
income for 2002 and 2003 indicated that he earned P120,000.00
annually while in 2004, his annual gross income was P210,000.00.
The Solicitor General contended that because of the petitioner
appellees failure to divulge his true income, his moral character
has been tainted.
We hold otherwise.
Absent a clear and unmistakable showing that the petitioner
appellee knowingly and deliberately filed a fraudulent return
with intent to evade tax or that he has concealed the truth in his
income tax returns, the presumption that the latter has regularly
filed his return prevails. The petitionerappellee has, in fact,
explained before the trial court that his salary is not exactly fixed;
sometimes he earns more or sometimes less than his estimated or
average monthly earnings which could well be between
P15,000.00 to P18,000.00. He even testified that he is not
included in the payroll since his parents own the company and his
salaries are handed to him by his parents.
In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
and Loh Khuan Fatt, the Supreme Court did not agree with the
argument of the Solicitor General that there had been a willful
failure on the part of the applicant to disclose the petitioners true
income, thereby
573
xxxx
Lastly, the Solicitor General argued that petitionerappellee is
disqualified from becoming a citizen of the Philippines because he
could not even cite any of the principles underlying the
Constitution during crossexamination xxx.
xxxx
We agree with the observation of the petitionerappellee that
the oppositors representative during the crossexamination was
actually asking the petitionerappellee to recite what these
underlying principles of the Constitution are in a manner which a
law professor would normally ask his Political Law students. Not
being able to enumerate the principles in verbatim does not
necessarily mean that one does not believe in the Constitution.
What is important is that the petitionerappellee declared under
oath that he believes in the principles underlying the
Constitution, and that he had no derogatory or criminal record
which would be a clear violation of the law of the land.
Apparently, during crossexamination the oppositorappellant did
not confront the petitionerappellee of the principles which it
thought the latter does not believe in.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated
September 24, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 96 in Naturalization Case No. Q0555251 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.17
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but in its March 7,
2012 Resolution, the appellate court stood its ground.
_______________
574
Issue
Thus, the instant Petition was filed, raising the
following issue:
Petitioners Arguments
In its Petition and Reply19 seeking the reversal of the
assailed CA dispositions as well as the denial of
respondents petition for naturalization, petitioner argues
that respondent failed to prove that he is engaged in a
lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; that
respondents admission during trial that he is not even in
the payroll of his employer belies his claim that he is the
general manager thereof, as well as his claim that he is
engaged in a lucrative trade; that respondents declared
monthly income is not even sufficient for his family, much
less could it be considered lucrative; that respondents
admission that he received allowances from his parents to
answer for the daily expenses of his family further proves
the point that he does not have a lucrative trade; that the
monthly income declared in respondents petition for
naturalization could not be reconciled with the incomes
stated in his annual tax returns; that the inconsistencies in
respondents testimonial and documentary evidence point
to the fact the he could either be evading taxes or
concealing the truth regarding his income, and indicates
that he does not possess the requisite good moral character;
that respondents act of
_______________
18 Id., at p. 22.
19 Id., at pp. 132137.
575
fact that he does not personally file his income tax returns;
that his monthly salary is not fixed; that most of his
expenses are taken cared of by his parents who own the
zipper manufacturing business which employs him; that
the Antipolo property was not titled in his name, but in the
name of his wife, and the title thereto merely describes and
indicates that the owner his wife is married to him;
that he was merely made to sign the deed of sale, and he
had no hand in its preparation nor was he aware that
his citizenship was indicated therein; and that as he was
not a law student, he could not at the trial be expected to
recite verbatim and specifically the underlying legal
principles of the Constitution, which is what petitioner
expected him to do at the time.
Our Ruling
The Court finds for petitioner.
In Republic v. Hong,21 it was held in essence that an
applicant for naturalization must show full and complete
compliance with the requirements of the naturalization
law; otherwise, his petition for naturalization will be
denied. This ponente has likewise held that [t]he courts
must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings
are imbued with the
_______________
576
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
22 Republic v. Ong, G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 485,
498.
577
From the above, it may be concluded that there is no
basis for the CA finding that respondent is engaged in a
lucrative trade. Indeed, his supposed income of P15,000.00
to P18,000.00 per month as found by the CA is not enough
for the support of his family. By his own admission, most of
his familys daily expenses are still shouldered by his
parents who own the zipper manufacturing business which
employs him. This simply means that respondent continues
to be a burden to, and a charge upon, his parents; he lives
on the charity of his parents. He cannot support his own
family on his own.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
578
_______________
579
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
580
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bd37cd35cee05e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18