GR 212785; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 212785 . APRIL 4, 2018. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. GO PEI HUNG, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Go Pei Hung, a British subject and Hong Kong resident, filed a Petition for Naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 (CA 473). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila granted his petition, finding he possessed all qualifications under Section 2 of CA 473, including good moral character and a lucrative trade. The RTC noted his two character witnesses had known him since 1995 and could attest to his conduct. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing fatal non-compliance with specific statutory requirements.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, contending the lower courts erred in granting naturalization despite Go Pei Hung’s failure to: (1) file a declaration of intention as required by Section 5; (2) attach a certificate of arrival as mandated by Section 7; and (3) prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation under Section 2.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of Go Pei Hung’s petition for naturalization despite alleged non-compliance with mandatory requirements of CA 473.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that naturalization laws must be strictly construed in favor of the State, and an applicant bears the burden of proving full and complete compliance with every statutory requirement. The Court found three fatal deficiencies.
First, the respondent failed to file the requisite declaration of intention under Section 5 of CA 473. This is a mandatory procedural step, and its exemption applies only under specific conditions not proven to exist in this case. Second, he did not attach a certificate of arrival as required by Section 7. This document is crucial for verifying the applicant’s entry and the commencement of the required residency period. Third, the evidence for his lucrative trade was insufficient. His claim of being a businessman and investor, supported only by general statements and unverified documents like a business registration and tax returns, did not constitute the clear and convincing proof required to establish a stable income sufficient to support himself and his dependents. Since naturalization is a privilege, not a right, any doubt must be resolved against the applicant. The collective failure to meet these mandatory requirements warranted the denial of the petition.