G.R. No. 212785 - Republic vs. Go Pei Hung

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Respondent: Go Pei Hung, a British subject and Hong Kong resident seeking Philippine citizenship by judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law).
Governing provisions: Section 2 (qualifications), Section 5 (Declaration of Intention), Section 6 (exemptions from Declaration of Intention), and Section 7 (contents and attachments to the petition, including the certificate of arrival). Republic Act No. 530 (two-year probation) was referenced by the RTC.

Antecedents in the RTC (Naturalization Case No. 07-118391, RTC Manila, Branch 16)

Respondent filed his Petition for Naturalization on December 3, 2007, alleging residence in the Philippines since 1973, studying in Philippine Pasay Chinese School (graduated Grade VI in 1976), and engagement in business (Excel Parts Sales Center, auto parts at R. Hidalgo St., Manila).
The RTC granted the petition in a Decision dated July 21, 2010, finding compliance with Section 2, CA 473, and crediting two character witnesses (Lato Sy Lai and So An Ui Henry Sy) who claimed familiarity with respondent since 1995. The RTC imposed RA 530’s two-year waiting period and set a hearing for August 30, 2012.

The Republic appealed, asserting: (a) failure to file Declaration of Intention (Sec. 5); (b) failure to attach a certificate of arrival (Sec. 7); (c) lack of “lucrative trade, profession or occupation” (Sec. 2[4]); and (d) failure to present at least two credible witnesses (Sec. 7).
The CA affirmed the RTC on February 28, 2014, holding: (a) respondent is exempt from filing a Declaration of Intention under Sec. 6 because he had resided in the Philippines for over 30 years (since 1973), supported by schooling and testimony; (b) the certificate of arrival is subsumed in the (exempted) declaration of intention; (c) respondent showed a lucrative occupation via ITRs (2007–2009) and testimony regarding the auto parts business; and (d) witnesses were credible, with the trial court’s assessment accorded deference. The CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration on June 5, 2014.

Republic’s arguments: (a) failure to file a Declaration of Intention (Sec. 5) and to attach a certificate of arrival (Sec. 7) is fatal; respondent is not exempt from Sec. 5 because he was born in Hong Kong and only became a permanent resident in 1989 (less than 30 years before 2007); (b) certificate of arrival is indispensable to prevent naturalization of those who entered illegally; (c) publication was defective; (d) lack of lucrative occupation (P165,000 average annual income as of filing insufficient for a family); (e) character witnesses were not credible (generalized testimonies; acquaintance only since 1995); and (f) procedural note that annexes not furnished to respondent were known and in his possession.
Respondent’s arguments: (a) the Rule 45 petition violated Sec. 4 (for lack of annexes served on him); (b) exemption from Declaration of Intention under Sec. 6 based on continuous residence since 1973; (c) certificate of arrival is merely a component of the declaration of intention, hence unnecessary when exempt; (d) publication complied with the law; (e) lucrative occupation shown (and by 2010, earning P50,000 monthly as commission sales executive); and (f) character witnesses were credible.

Whether the petition for naturalization may be granted despite non-attachment of the certificate of arrival required by Section 7 of CA 473, and whether exemption from the Declaration of Intention under Section 6 dispenses with the certificate of arrival.

Corollary: Whether permanent resident status cures or substitutes for the certificate-of-arrival requirement.

Whether respondent was exempt from the Declaration of Intention under Section 6 for having resided continuously in the Philippines for at least 30 years prior to filing.

Whether respondent proved a “known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation” within the contemplation of Section 2(4) of CA 473.

Whether respondent presented at least two “credible persons” as character witnesses within the meaning of Section 7.

Whether alleged defects in publication and in the Republic’s failure to furnish annexes to respondent in the Rule 45 petition affect disposition.