GR 175430; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175430 ; June 18, 2012
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Kerry Lao Ong, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Kerry Lao Ong, a Chinese citizen born and permanently residing in the Philippines, filed a petition for naturalization. He claimed to be a businessman/business manager since 1989 with an average annual income of ₱150,000. The trial court granted his petition, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Republic appealed, arguing Ong failed to prove compliance with the legal requirement of having a lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. The evidence showed inconsistencies: Ong alleged being a businessman since 1989 but testified to starting in 1978, and he failed to specify the nature of his business. His Income Tax Returns from 1994 to 1997 reflected gross annual incomes ranging only from ₱60,000 to ₱128,000, not the alleged ₱150,000 average.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Kerry Lao Ong successfully proved his possession of a lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation as required for naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower courts’ decisions and DENIED the petition for naturalization. The Court emphasized that naturalization laws are strictly construed against the applicant, who bears the burden of proving full compliance with all statutory requirements. A lucrative income is essential to ensure the applicant will not be a burden to the state and can support his family. Ong’s evidence was fatally insufficient. He did not substantiate the nature of his business, and his presented tax returns contradicted his claim of a ₱150,000 average income, instead showing lower and fluctuating earnings. The Court ruled that such income, for a family of six with children in private schools, could not be considered lucrative. Furthermore, his character witnesses, while attesting to his good moral character, were not shown to be credible persons who could properly vouch for the nature and financial viability of his business. Consequently, Ong failed to discharge his burden of proof regarding a key qualification, warranting the denial of his application.