Ong Tai v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ong Tai, a citizen of the Republic of China, arrived in the Philippines in 1938, departed in 1941, and returned in 1948. He is married to Lu Choy Fa, also a Chinese citizen, with whom he has three children born in Hong Kong. Ong Tai is employed at Seng Hap Guan Grocery, reporting annual incomes ranging from P3,200.00 to P6,100.00 between 1957 and 1960. Procedural History: Ong Tai filed a declaration of intention to become a Philippine citizen on March 22, 1959. Subsequently, on December 27, 1960, he filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The government, as oppositor-appellant, contested the decision of the Court of First Instance, which had granted the naturalization petition. The appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The government's appeal argues that the naturalization petition is invalid and that the petitioner does not possess a lucrative trade or occupation. Specifically, the government contends that Ong Tai failed to disclose a former place of residence (509 Nueva St., Manila) in his petition, a violation of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which requires the disclosure of both present and former residences. Furthermore, the government asserts that Ong Tai's reported income was not lucrative enough to support his family, considering the cost of living and the purchasing power of the peso at the time of the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to state all former places of residence in the petition for naturalization is a fatal defect. Whether the petitioner's income was lucrative enough to qualify him for naturalization.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila is reversed. The petition for naturalization is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to state former places of residence: The Court held that the failure to state all former places of residence in the petition for naturalization is a fatal defect. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires the petition to set forth not only the present but also the former places of residence to facilitate investigation. The omission of a former residence, even if not far from the reported one, constitutes a violation of the law and indicates a lack of good moral character, which disqualifies the petitioner from admission to Philippine citizenship. This omission is considered a falsification of the truth, and the petitioner failed to prove that the omission did not impair the effectivity of the required official investigation. On the lucrative trade or occupation: The Court found that the petitioner's annual income, averaging P4,125.00, was not lucrative considering he had a wife and three children, the high cost of living, and the low purchasing power of the peso. The Court also noted that any income increase during the pendency of the appeal was irrelevant, as the financial capacity should be determined at the time of filing the petition. This further argued against the petitioner's competence to become a Filipino citizen.
Main Doctrine
Failure to state former places of residence in a petition for naturalization is a fatal defect, constituting a violation of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law and indicating a lack of good moral character. Furthermore, an income that is insufficient to support a family, considering the cost of living, cannot be considered lucrative.