NATURALIZATION First: My full name is HUANG TE FU, also known Eighth: I have resided continuously, for the last

as ROBERT UY; twenty three (23) years, in the Philippines since my

DIVISION arrival. I have received my primary education at
Second:My places of residence were: Philippine Cultural High School; secondary
1 Santiago Street, Malinta, Valenzuela education at Philippine Cultural High School; and
[ GR No. 200983, Mar 18, 2015 ] 1982
City finished my college education at Ateneo de Manila
1982 University with the degree of Bachelor of Science in
REPUBLIC v. HUANG TE FU + Biak na Bato, San Francisco Del
to Computer Science, respectively, which are schools
Monte, Quezon City
1984 recognized by the Government and not limited to any
DECISION 1984 race or nationality;
235 C 3rd Street, 10th Avenue,
to
Caloocan City
DEL CASTILLO, J.: 1994 Ninth: I am able to speak and write English and
This case reiterates the rule in naturalization cases 1994 Filipino;
64-A Parklane Street, Barangay
that when full and complete compliance with the to
Sangandaan, Project 8, Quezon City;
requirements of the Revised Naturalization Law, or present Tenth: I believe in the principle underlying the
Commonwealth Act No. 473 (CA 473), is not shown, Philippine Constitution. I am of good moral
a petition for naturalization must be perfunctorily Third: My trade or profession is a Businessman character and have conducted myself in a proper and
denied. engaged in the manufacture of zipper, in which I irreproachable manner during the entire period of my
have been connected since 1992; and from which I residence in the Philippines, in my relations with the
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to set derive an average monthly income of P15,000.00; constituted Government as well as with the
aside 1) the November 29, 2011 Decision[2] of the community in which I am living. I have mingled
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 91213 Fourth: I was born on the 15th day of August 1976 socially with the Filipinos, and have evinced a
affirming the September 24, 2007 Order[3] of the in Taiwan. I am at present a Citizen or subject of the sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96 in Republic of China, under whose laws Filipinos may traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos. I have all the
Nat. Case/Spec. Proc. No. Q-05-55251, as well as 2) become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof [sic]; qualifications required under Section 2, a special
the CA's March 7, 2012 Resolution[4] denying qualification under Section 3, by being married to a
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.[5] Fifth: I am married to a Filipino, IRENE D. CHAN, Filipino woman, and none of the disqualifications
28 years of age, having been born on 11 April 1977 under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473;
Factual Antecedents at Manila, and with whom I have two (2) children,
namely: ROCHELLE IVY C. HUANG, 3 years of I am not opposed to organized government or
On March 19, 2004, respondent Huang Te Fu, a.k.a. age, who was born on 26 March 2002 at [sic] Quezon affiliated with any association or group of persons
Robert Uy a citizen of the Republic of China City; and REYNARD IVAN C. HUANG, 1 year of who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all
(Taiwan) filed a sworn Declaration of Intent to age, who was born on 25 February 2004 at [sic] organized governments. I am not defending or
Become [a] Citizen of the Philippines[6] with the Quezon City. My wife and two children are teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). presently residing with me at 64-A Parklane Street, personal assault, or assassination for the success and
Barangay Sangandaan, Project 8, Quezon City; predominance of men's ideas. I am not a polygamist
On April 27, 2005, respondent filed with the nor a believer in the practice of polygamy. I have not
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (trial court) a Sixth: I arrived in the Philippines via China Airlines been convicted of any crime involving moral
Petition for Naturalization,[7] which was docketed as on the 13th of August 1982; turpitude. I am not suffering from any mental
Spec. Proc. No. Q-05-55251 and assigned to Branch alienation or incurable diseases. The nation of which
96. The Petition states: Seventh: I have filed my Declaration of Intent to I am a citizen or subject of is not at war with the
Become a Citizen of the Philippines with the Office Philippines. The country of which I am a citizen or
I apply for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines of the Solicitor General on 4 March 2004, pursuant to subject of grants Filipinos the right to become
and to the Court, respectfully shows [sic]: and in compliance with Section 5 of Commonwealth naturalized citizens or subjects thereof;
Act No. 473, as amended;[8]
Eleventh: It is my intention in good faith to become a
citizen or subject of the Philippines and to renounce Francisco Del Monte and they later transferred to 23- and teach doctrines opposing all organized
absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to C, 3rd Street, 10th Avenue, Caloocan City; that governments. He has all the qualifications required
my foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, petitioner presently resides at No. 64-A Parklane and none of the disqualifications under
and particularly to the Republic of China of which at Street, Barangay Sangandaan, Project 8, Quezon Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
this time I am a citizen or subject. I will reside City; that he attended Philippine Cultural High
continuously in the Philippines from the date of the School for his elementary and secondary education; Moreover, petitioner's intention to become a citizen
filing of my petition up to the time of my admission that he attended Ateneo de Manila University where of the Philippines is being done in good faith, and to
to the Philippine Citizenship; he took up Bachelor of Science in Computer Science. renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign state, prince, potentate or
Twelfth: I have not heretofore made any petition for When petitioner graduated from College in the year sovereignty and particularly to the Chinese
citizenship to any Court; 2000, he worked as General Manager of MIT Zipper, Government of which at this time he is a citizen and
a company owned by the family of the petitioner; that subject, and that petitioner shall reside continuously
Thirteenth: Mr. BENJAMIN A. MORALEDA, JR., as a businessman he conscientiously files Income Tax in the Philippines from the date of filing of this
of legal age, married, residing at 82-A Maginoo Returns; that he is presently married to Irene Chan, a petition up to the time of [his] admission to the
Street, Barangay Central, Quezon City, and Ms. Filipino citizen on October 01, 2000; that he has two Philippine Citizenship.
BELLA RAMONA A. ANTONANO, of legal age, children namely, Rochelle Ivy C. Huang, 3 years old,
single, residing at 1 Ligaya Street, Mandaluyong and Reynard Ivan C. Huang, 1 year old and that he Based on the foregoing, the Court believes that the
City, who are both Filipinos, will appear and testify and his family are presently residing at 64-A petitioner was able to establish by sufficient
as my witnesses at the hearing of my herein petition. Parklane Street, Barangay Sangandaan, Project 8, evidence, both testimonial and documentary, that he
Quezon City. has all the qualifications and none of the
Attached hereto and made an integral part of this disqualifications provided for under the law which
petition are: (a) the Original Certification of Arrival Petitioner further alleged that he believes in the will warrant the granting of the relief being prayed
from the Bureau of Immigration (Annex "A"); (b) principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. He for.
Declaration of Intent to Become a Citizen of the had conducted himself in a proper, irreproachable
Philippines (Annex "B"); (c) Affidavit of the two manner during his entire period of residence in the ACCORDINGLY, therefore, the petition for
witnesses (Annexes "C" and "D"); and (d) my two Philippines in his relations with the constituted admission as citizen of the Philippines is hereby
recent photographs (Annexes "E" and "E-1"). government as well as with the community in which GRANTED.
he is living. These allegations are evinced by the
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that he be admitted a clearances petitioner was able to secure from the This decision shall become executory after two (2)
citizen of the Philippines.[9] Philippine National Police, National Bureau of years from its promulgation and after the Court, after
Investigation, Office of the Clerk of Court Regional hearing, with the attendance of the Solicitor General
After trial, the trial court issued a September 24, 2007 Trial Court, Quezon City, and the Office of the City or his representative, is satisfied, and so finds that
Order[10] granting respondent's petition for Prosecutor. He has mingled socially with the during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not
naturalization, decreeing thus: Filipinos, and have [sic] evinced a sincere desire to left the Philippines, (2) dedicated himself
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) not
Petitioner[11] thereafter testified that he was born on of the Filipinos. been convicted of any offense or violation of
August 15, 1976 in Taiwan; that his father, Huang government[-]promulgated rules, or (4) committed
Ping-Hsung, and mother, Huang Wen, Chiu-Yueh are Petitioner further alleged that he is not a polygamist any act of [sic] prejudicial to the interest of the nation
both Chinese nationals; that he is the holder of Alien nor a believer in the practice of polygamy. He has or contrary to any government renounced [sic]
Certificate of Registration No. E062035 and not been convicted of any crime involving moral policies.
Immigrant Certificate of Residence No. 259804; that turpitude. He is not suffering from any mental
he resided at Lin 4, Chienkuo Li, Panchiao City, alienation or any incurable or contagious SO ORDERED.[12]
Taipei County, Taiwan Province since his birth until disease. The nation of which he is presently a citizen
he came to Manila, Philippines on August 13, 1982; or subject of, is not at war with the Philippines. He is Ruling of the Court of Appeals
that he first stayed at Santiago Street, Valenzuela not opposed to organized government or affiliated
City; that they transferred to Biak-na-Bato Street, San with any association or group of persons who uphold Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA, which was
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 91213. Petitioner that petitioner's opposition is based merely on appellee's failure to divulge his true income, his
contended in its Appellant's Brief[13] that respondent conjecture and particular portions of the evidence moral character has been tainted.
may not become a naturalized Filipino citizen which do not represent the whole context of the
because: 1) he does not own real estate in the proceedings. We hold otherwise.
Philippines; 2) he does not have some known
lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; 3) he On November 29, 2011, the CA issued the assailed Absent a clear and unmistakable showing that the
is not gainfully employed, as he merely worked in the Decision, pronouncing thus: petitioner-appellee knowingly and deliberately filed a
business owned by his family and was merely given fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or that he
allowances by his parents for the daily expenses of First off, an examination of the evidence presented has concealed the truth in his income tax returns, the
his family; 4) in an August 2001 Deed of Sale[14] during the proceedings below shows that the presumption that the latter has regularly filed his
covering a parcel of land in Antipolo City he and his petitioner-appellee[16] has been engaged in some return prevails. The petitioner-appellee has, in fact,
wife supposedly purchased, respondent falsely lucrative trade or lawful occupation. He works as explained before the trial court that his salary is not
misrepresented himself as a Filipino citizen, thus general manager in their family-owned business, exactly fixed; sometimes he earns more or sometimes
exemplifying his lack of good moral character; 5) his Crown Shipper Manufacturer and Trading less than his estimated or average monthly earnings
income tax returns for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 Corporation, a zipper manufacturing company which could well be between P15,000.00 to
reveal that his actual monthly income differs from his employing workers mostly coming from the P18,000.00. He even testified that he is not included
monthly income as declared in his petition for province. in the payroll since his parents own the company and
naturalization, leading to the conclusion that either he his salaries are handed to him by his parents.
is evading taxes or concealing the truth regarding his Prior to his appointment as general manager,
income; and 6) on cross-examination by petitioner, petitioner-appellee has also been working in the In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
he could not cite any of the principles underlying the family's business before his parents turned over the Appeals and Loh Khuan Fatt, the Supreme Court did
Philippine Constitution which he is supposed to management of its affairs. This is evidenced by the not agree with the argument of the Solicitor General
believe in. increase in the declared gross income of the that there had been a willful failure on the part of the
petitioner-appellee in his Income Tax Returns filed applicant to disclose the petitioner's true income,
In a short Comment/Opposition[15] to petitioner's for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The extent thereby tainting his moral character. The discrepancy
brief, respondent admitted that while "he was merely of the operations of the petitioner-appellee's family between the petitioner's estimate of his income in his
made to sign the Deed of Sale" which falsely business and his involvement in the management application and that declared by him during his direct
represented him as a Filipino citizen, he "had nothing thereof are corroborated by the testimonies of Atty. testimony should not be taken against him as an
to do with the preparation" thereof and was Benjamin Moraleda and Atty. Bella Ramona indication of intent to evade payment of taxes. x x x
"unaware" that his citizenship was even indicated Antonano, both friends of the Huang family and the
therein "he just signed the document as requested by petitioner-appellee since 1987 and 1994, xxxx
the broker so that the property will be registered in respectively. Both witnesses also testified that the
the name of his wife;" that the discrepancy between petitioner-appellee possessed all the qualifications Lastly, the Solicitor General argued that petitioner-
his income declarations in his tax returns and the and none of the disqualifications to become a appellee is disqualified from becoming a citizen of
declared income in his petition for naturalization naturalized citizen of the Philippines. the Philippines because he could not even cite any of
came to light and resulted from the fact that "he does the principles underlying the Constitution during
not personally file his income tax returns and that he Secondly, the Solicitor General also averred that the cross-examination x x x.
merely received salaries in the range of P15,000.00 petitioner-appellee failed to conduct himself in a
per month considering that he is employed in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire xxxx
family corporation;" that "most of his expenses are stay or residence in the Philippines. It noted that the
taken care of by his parents who own the petitioner-appellee stated in his petition that he earns We agree with the observation of the petitioner-
corporation," and this has been explained during an average of P15,000.00 per month but his declared appellee that the oppositor's representative during the
his cross-examination; that while petitioner claimed gross income for 2002 and 2003 indicated that he cross-examination was actually asking the petitioner-
that he could not cite any underlying principles of the earned P120,000.00 annually while in 2004, his appellee to recite what these underlying principles of
Constitution, he was not confronted by the former annual gross income was P210,000.00. The Solicitor the Constitution are in a manner which a law
about these principles during the proceedings; and General contended that because of the petitioner- professor would normally ask his Political Law
students. Not being able to enumerate the principles thereof, as well as his claim that he is engaged in a
in verbatim does not necessarily mean that one does lucrative trade; that respondent's declared monthly The Court finds for petitioner.
not believe in the Constitution. What is important is income is not even sufficient for his family, much
that the petitioner-appellee declared under oath that less could it be considered "lucrative;" that In Republic v. Hong,[21] it was held in essence that an
he believes in the principles underlying the respondent's admission that he received allowances applicant for naturalization must show full and
Constitution, and that he had no derogatory or from his parents to answer for the daily expenses of complete compliance with the requirements of the
criminal record which would be a clear violation of his family further proves the point that he does not naturalization law; otherwise, his petition for
the law of the land. Apparently, during cross- have a lucrative trade; that the monthly income naturalization will be denied. This ponente has
examination the oppositor-appellant did not confront declared in respondent's petition for naturalization likewise held that "[t]he courts must always be
the petitioner-appellee of the principles which it could not be reconciled with the incomes stated in his mindful that naturalization proceedings are imbued
thought the latter does not believe in. annual tax returns; that the inconsistencies in with the highest public interest. Naturalization laws
respondent's testimonial and documentary evidence should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the point to the fact the he could either be evading taxes favor of the government and against the applicant.
Decision dated September 24, 2007 of the Regional or concealing the truth regarding his income, and The burden of proof rests upon the applicant to show
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96 in indicates that he does not possess the requisite good full and complete compliance with the requirements
Naturalization Case No. Q-05-55251 is AFFIRMED. moral character; that respondent's act of falsely of law."[22]
declaring himself a Filipino citizen in the August
SO ORDERED.[17] 2001 deed of sale proves lack of good moral Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA
character and defiance of the constitutional 473 requires, among others, that an applicant for
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but in its March prohibition regarding foreign ownership of land; and naturalization must be of good moral character and
7, 2012 Resolution, the appellate court stood its that respondent has exhibited lack of knowledge of must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or
ground. the underlying principles of the Philippine lawful occupation. In regard to the requirement that
Constitution. the applicant must have a known lucrative trade, this
Issue ponente declared:
Respondent's Arguments
Thus, the instant Petition was filed, raising the Based on jurisprudence, the qualification of "some
following issue: In his Comment,[20] respondent reiterates that the known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful
inconsistencies in his income tax returns and occupation" means "not only that the person
WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT X X X HAS declarations during the naturalization proceedings are having the employment gets enough for his
DULY COMPLIED WITH THE RIGID explained by the fact that he does not personally file ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown that
REQUISITES PRESCRIBED BY his income tax returns; that his monthly salary is not the employment gives one an income such that
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 473, OTHERWISE fixed; that most of his expenses are taken cared of by there is an appreciable margin of his income over
KNOWN AS THE REVISED NATURALIZATION his parents who own the zipper manufacturing his expenses as to be able to provide for an
LAW, AS TO ENTITLE HIM TO BE ADMITTED business which employs him; that the Antipolo adequate support in the event of unemployment,
AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.[18] property was not titled in his name, but in the name sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one's
of his wife, and the title thereto merely describes and becoming the object of charity or a public
Petitioner's Arguments indicates that the owner his wife is married to him; charge." His income should permit "him and the
that he was merely made to sign the deed of sale, and members of his family to live with reasonable
In its Petition and Reply[19] seeking the reversal of the he had no hand in its preparation nor was he aware comfort, in accordance with the prevailing
assailed CA dispositions as well as the denial of that his citizenship was indicated therein; and that as standard of living, and consistently with the
respondent's petition for naturalization, petitioner he was not a law student, he could not at the trial be demands of human dignity, at this stage of our
argues that respondent failed to prove that he is expected to recite verbatim and specifically the civilization."
engaged in a lucrative trade, profession or lawful underlying legal principles of the Constitution, which
occupation; that respondent's admission during trial is what petitioner expected him to do at the time. Moreover, it has been held that in determining the
that he is not even in the payroll of his employer existence of a lucrative income, the courts should
belies his claim that he is the general manager Our Ruling consider only the applicant's income; his or her
spouse's income should not be included in the the tax laws, labor laws relative to the employment of should conduct himself accordingly in this country
assessment. The spouse's additional income is aliens, and other laws that would otherwise regulate with care, circumspect, and respect for the laws of the
immaterial "for under the law the petitioner should be respondent's actions during his stay in this host. Finally, as an educated and experienced
the one to possess 'some known lucrative trade, country. Indeed, without payroll records, it can never businessman, it must be presumed that he acted with
profession or lawful occupation' to qualify him to be said that respondent works for his parents' zipper due care and signed the deed of sale with full
become a Filipino citizen." Lastly, the Court has business. If such is the case, then respondent is not knowledge of its import.[28]
consistently held that the applicant's qualifications required to state in his income tax return as is the
must be determined as of the time of the filing of his case his employer and what he actually receives as Having decided in the foregoing manner, We must
petition.[23] (Emphasis supplied) salary therefrom; he is free to conveniently declare conclude the instant case and disregard the other
any amount of income in his tax returns. issues and arguments of the parties; they are deemed
From the above, it may be concluded that there is no irrelevant and will not alter the conclusion arrived
basis for the CA finding that respondent is engaged in Either way, respondent's deliberate non-inclusion in at. As far as this Court is concerned, respondent has
a lucrative trade. Indeed, his supposed income of the payroll of his parents' business can have only the failed to satisfy the law which renders him
P15,000.00 to P18,000.00 per month as found by the most unpleasant connotations. And his consent to be completely undeserving of Filipino citizenship.
CA is not enough for the support of his family. By part of such scheme reflects negatively on his moral
his own admission, most of his family's daily character. It shows a proclivity for untruthfulness WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The
expenses are still shouldered by his parents who own and dishonesty, and an unreserved willingness and November 29, 2011 Decision and March 7, 2012
the zipper manufacturing business which employs readiness to violate Philippine laws. Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
him. This simply means that respondent continues to No. 91213 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The
be a burden to, and a charge upon, his parents; he The appellate court's reliance upon the case of September 24, 2007 Order of the Regional Trial
lives on the charity of his parents. He cannot support Republic v. Court of Appeals[26] is misplaced. In that Court of Quezon City, Branch 96 in Nat. Case/Spec.
his own family on his own. case, there was only a discrepancy between the Proc. No. Q-05-55251 is likewise ANNULLED and
applicant's estimate of his income in his application SET ASIDE, and the respondent's Petition for
Indeed, it is even doubtful that respondent is carrying and that declared by him during his direct Naturalization in said case is DISMISSED.
on a trade at all. He admitted during trial that he was testimony. In the present case, respondent is not at
not even listed or included in the payroll of his all listed on the payroll of his parent's business, SO ORDERED.
family's zipper business. If this is the case, then he where he is supposed to be its general manager. As a
may not be considered an employee thereof. One of result, there is absolutely no basis for the correct
the most effective pieces of evidence to prove determination of his income; instead, he invites Us to
employment aside from the employment contract conveniently rely on his income tax returns and his
itself and other documents such as daily time unilateral declarations. As We have earlier said, if
records[24] is a worker's inclusion in the payroll. With We are to believe them, then still, they are
this admitted fact, one may not be faulted for insufficient to generate a conclusion that respondent
believing that respondent's alleged employment in his is carrying on a lucrative trade; he cannot support his
family's zipper business was contrived for the sole family from his declared income.
purpose of complying with the legal requirements
prior to obtaining Philippine citizenship. Moreover, respondent's admitted false declaration
under oath contained in the August 2001 deed of sale
On the other hand, even assuming that respondent that he is a Filipino citizen which he did to secure the
was indeed employed by his parents, his non- seamless registration of the property in the name of
inclusion in the payroll for all the years he has his wife is further proof of respondent's lack of good
worked in his parents' business[25] suggests as moral character. It is also a violation of the
correctly argued by petitioner an intent to evade taxes constitutional prohibition on ownership of lands by
or to conceal the true nature of his employment and foreign individuals.[27] His defense that he
the amount of his salary or income. It is concealment unknowingly signed the deed is unacceptable. First
of the truth; an attempt to circumvent with impunity of all, as a foreigner living in a foreign land, he