REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
HUANG TE FU, A.K.A. ROBERT UY, G.R. No.
200983, March 18, 2015.
“X x
x.
In Republic v. Hong,1 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 highest public
interest. Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly
construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. The burden of
proof rests upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the
requirements of law.”2
Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among others, that an applicant for
naturalization must be of good moral character and must have some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. In regard to the
requirement that the applicant must have a known lucrative trade, this ponente declared:
Based on jurisprudence, the qualification of “some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation” means “not only that the
person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in
life. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that
there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to
provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or
disability to work and thus avoid one’s becoming the object of charity or a
public charge.” His income should permit “him and the members of his family to
live with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of
living, and consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of
our civilization.”
Moreover, it has been held that in determining the existence
of a lucrative income, the courts should consider only the applicant’s income;
his or her spouse’s income should not be included in the assessment. The
spouse’s additional income is immaterial “for under the law the petitioner
should be the one to possess ‘some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful
occupation’ to qualify him to become a Filipino citizen.” Lastly, the Court has
consistently held that the applicant’s qualifications must be determined as of
the time of the filing of his petition.3 (Emphasis supplied)
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 family’s 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.
Indeed,
it is even doubtful that respondent is carrying on a trade at all. He
admitted during trial that he was not even listed or included in the payroll of
his family’s 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 records4 – is a worker’s inclusion in the payroll. With this
admitted fact, one may not be faulted for believing that respondent’s alleged
employment in his family’s zipper business was contrived for the sole purpose
of complying with the legal requirements prior to obtaining Philippine
citizenship.
On the
other hand, even assuming that respondent was indeed employed by his parents,
his non-inclusion in the payroll for all the years he has worked in his
parents’ business5 suggests – as correctly argued by petitioner – an intent to
evade taxes or to conceal the true nature of his employment and the amount of
his salary or income. It is concealment of the truth; an attempt to
circumvent with impunity the tax laws, labor laws relative to the employment of
aliens, and other laws that would otherwise regulate respondent’s actions
during his stay in this country. Indeed, without payroll records, it can never
be said that respondent works for his parents’ zipper business. If such
is the case, then respondent is not required to state in his income tax return
– as is the case – his employer and what he actually receives as salary
therefrom; he is free to conveniently declare any amount of income in his tax
returns.
Either
way, respondent’s deliberate non-inclusion in the payroll of his parents’
business can have only the most unpleasant connotations. And his consent
to be part of such scheme reflects negatively on his moral character. It
shows a proclivity for untruthfulness and dishonesty, and an unreserved
willingness and readiness to violate Philippine laws.
The
appellate court’s reliance upon the case of Republic
v. Court of Appeals6 is misplaced. In that case, there was only a
discrepancy between the applicant’s estimate of his income in his application
and that declared by him during his direct testimony. In the present
case, respondent is not at all listed on the payroll of his parent’s business, where
he is supposed to be its general manager. As a result, there is
absolutely no basis for the correct determination of his income; instead, he
invites Us to conveniently rely on his income tax returns and his unilateral
declarations. As We have earlier said, if We are to believe them, then
still, they are insufficient to generate a conclusion that respondent is
carrying on a lucrative trade; he cannot support his family from his declared
income.
Moreover,
respondent’s 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 respondent’s lack of good moral character. It is also a violation
of the constitutional prohibition on ownership of lands by foreign individuals.7 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.8
Having
decided in the foregoing manner, We must conclude the instant case and
disregard the other issues and arguments of the parties; they are deemed
irrelevant and will not alter the conclusion arrived at. As far as this
Court is concerned, respondent has failed to satisfy the law which renders him
completely undeserving of Filipino citizenship.
X x x.”
1 520 Phil. 276, 285
(2006).
2 Republic v. Ong,
G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 485, 498.
3 Id. at 499-500.
4 See Ang v. San
Joaquin, Jr., G.R. No. 185549, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 269, 287.
5 Or since 2000.
6 354 Phil. 733
(1998).
7 CONSTITUTION,
Article XII, Section 7. – Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
8 See Development
Bank of the Philippines v. National Merchandising Corporation, 148-B Phil. 310
(1971).
