Republic v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Go Pei Hung, a British subject, filed a Petition for Naturalization seeking Philippine citizenship. The core of the dispute revolves around whether Go Pei Hung fully and completely complied with the requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, to be granted citizenship. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 16, initially granted Go Pei Hung's petition for naturalization on July 21, 2010. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 28, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, dismissing the Republic's appeal. The CA subsequently denied the Republic's Motion for Reconsideration on June 5, 2014. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the CA's decisions. The Republic argues that the petition for naturalization should have been denied due to Go Pei Hung's failure to file a Declaration of Intention with the OSG, failure to attach a Certificate of Arrival to his petition, not being engaged in a lucrative trade or occupation, and failing to present qualified character witnesses. The Republic contends that these omissions are fatal to the naturalization process and that Go Pei Hung is not exempt from these requirements as he did not reside in the Philippines for the requisite 30 years prior to filing his petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of attaching a Certificate of Arrival to his Petition for Naturalization. Whether the respondent was exempt from filing a Declaration of Intention. Whether the respondent was engaged in a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. Whether the respondent presented credible character witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed and set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the respondent's Petition for Naturalization.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to attach a Certificate of Arrival: The Court held that Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 mandates the attachment of a Certificate of Arrival to the Petition for Naturalization. This requirement is crucial to prove that the applicant entered the country legally and not by unlawful means. The Court reiterated its ruling in Republic v. Judge De la Rosa and Chiu Tek Yev v. Republic, stating that the failure to attach this certificate is fatal to the petition and renders it incomplete and void. The Court emphasized that even if the respondent acquired permanent resident status, this does not negate the requirement for the Certificate of Arrival, as the requirements for naturalization are separate from those for permanent residency. On the exemption from filing a Declaration of Intention: The Court found that while the respondent claimed exemption under Section 6 of CA 473 due to continuous residence of over thirty years, this exemption did not cure the fatal defect of failing to attach the Certificate of Arrival. The Court clarified that the Declaration of Intention and the Certificate of Arrival are distinct requirements, with the latter being essential for proving lawful entry. The Court noted that the respondent's argument that the Certificate of Arrival is a mere component of the Declaration of Intention was incorrect. On the lucrative trade, profession, or occupation: The Court did not reach a definitive ruling on this issue as the petition was dismissed on the ground of the missing Certificate of Arrival. However, the CA had previously found that the respondent had proven a lucrative trade as a businessman selling automobile parts, supported by his income tax returns and the testimony of a witness. On the credibility of character witnesses: Similarly, the Court did not make a definitive ruling on the credibility of the witnesses as the petition was dismissed on a procedural ground. The CA had previously found the witnesses credible, noting that they testified and were cross-examined, and that the Republic failed to present evidence to oppose their testimonies.
Main Doctrine
A petition for naturalization must be denied when full and complete compliance with the requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) is not shown, particularly the mandatory attachment of a Certificate of Arrival, the absence of which is fatal to the petition.