On v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Yoy On, also known as Ah Ong Chan, born in Makati, Rizal, on August 27, 1927, of Chinese parents, filed a petition for naturalization on November 23, 1964. He was married to Juanita Chan, also a Chinese national, and they had three children: Florence (born Feb 10, 1960), Alberto (born Apr 1, 1961), and Manuel (born Mar 28, 1963). Petitioner's income was derived from renting out juke boxes and a bakery business. Procedural History: The Republic of the Philippines objected to the naturalization on grounds of lack of lucrative income, lack of proper and irreproachable conduct, and incompetency of witnesses. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II, overruled these objections and declared the applicant qualified. The Petition: The Republic appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, arguing that the admission of the applicant was improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the applicant possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization. Whether the late registration of the applicant's children constituted improper and irreproachable conduct. Whether operating a bakery business without a renewed permit was a lawful excuse. Whether the character witnesses were credible and reliable. Whether the applicant possessed a lucrative income.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal is reversed, and the application for naturalization of appellee Yoy On alias Ah Ong Chan is ordered dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the late registration of children: The Court found that the applicant failed to register his three children within the prescribed 30-day period under the Alien Registration Act. Florence was born on February 10, 1960, and registered on February 8, 1961; Alberto was born on April 1, 1961, and registered on February 7, 1963; and Manuel was born on March 28, 1963, and registered on August 26, 1964. This delay constituted a double infraction of the law, violating both immigration regulations and the Alien Registration Act. Such violations were held to constitute "improper and reproachable conduct in his relation with the government, which renders him disqualified to be a naturalized citizen," citing Koa Heng vs. Republic and Emmanuel Lai vs. Republic. The applicant's excuse of a lack of registration forms at the Makati Bureau of Immigration was deemed unacceptable due to its flimsiness and the repeated nature of the delays over three successive registrations, especially given Makati's proximity to the head Immigration Office in Manila. On operating a business without a renewed permit: The applicant also conducted his bakery business in 1966 without renewing his 1965 permit from the Bureau of Commerce. His excuse that he applied for renewal but it was not acted upon was similarly rejected. The Court stated that this was not a lawful excuse, and the filing of the application for renewal was not properly established. This further demonstrated a disregard for government regulations. On the credibility of character witnesses: One of the character witnesses, Patrocinio Quijance, admitted to losing contact with the applicant from 1941 to 1948 and knowing nothing of his conduct during that period. Furthermore, the witness was a driver for the applicant's brother. The Court found that this witness could not be considered a trustworthy and reliable insurer of the applicant's character and conduct, thus not a "credible witness" as contemplated by law, citing Tan vs. Republic and O Ku Phuan vs. Republic. On the issue of lucrative income: The Court found that the applicant's net income, before deductions, was less than P500.00 a month. This was deemed inadequate to support himself, his wife, and three children, considering the increasing cost of living. The naturalization law seeks to avoid applicants becoming charges upon the State's resources by requiring them to possess a lucrative trade or occupation, a requirement not met by the applicant, citing V. Tan vs. Republic and Ong Hock Lian vs. Republic. Conclusion on qualifications: Based on the foregoing, the Court concluded that the applicant Yoy On alias Ah Ong Chan had not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner, as required by Section 2, third paragraph, of the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. 473, as amended). Therefore, his application should have been denied.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with immigration and revenue laws, specifically the late registration of children and operating a business without a renewed permit, constitutes improper and irreproachable conduct, disqualifying an applicant from naturalization. Furthermore, inadequate income and unreliable character witnesses are grounds for denial.