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

On December 3, 2007, Go Pei Hung, a British subject and Hong Kong resident, filed a Petition for Naturalization before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 16, docketed as Naturalization Case No. 07-118391, seeking Philippine citizenship.
The RTC, after trial, rendered a decision on July 21, 2010 granting the petition for naturalization, finding that petitioner complied with the qualifications under Commonwealth Act No. 473 (CA 473), the Revised Naturalization Law.

The RTC identified the qualifications under Section 2 of CA 473: a) at least 21 years old at the hearing of the petition; b) continuous residence in the Philippines for at least 10 years; c) good moral character and belief in the Philippine Constitution; d) ownership of real estate worth at least P5,000 or having a lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation; e) ability to speak and write English or Spanish and a principal Philippine language; f) enrollment of minor children in recognized Philippine schools during residence.
The RTC found that respondent Go Pei Hung complied with all such qualifications, including the presentation of at least two credible Filipino citizen character witnesses with personal knowledge of his residence and conduct, as mandated by Section 7 of CA 473.

The Republic of the Philippines filed an appeal to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 97542, raising alleged errors committed by the trial court in granting the petition despite:

Failure to file a Declaration of Intention as required under Section 5 of CA 473;
Failure to attach a Certificate of Arrival;
Failure to show by clear and convincing evidence a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation;
Failure to present at least two credible character witnesses during hearings as required by Section 7.

The petitioner-respondent (Go Pei Hung) opposed the appeal, asserting he met all statutory qualifications and was exempt from filing the Declaration of Intention under Section 6 of CA 473 because he had resided continuously in the Philippines for more than 30 years, starting in 1973, and had studied in Philippine schools.
The CA dismissed the appeal on February 28, 2014, affirming the RTC decision, on grounds that:

Respondent was exempted from filing the Declaration of Intention and Certificate of Arrival due to his continuous residence of over 30 years;
Presented credible witnesses who satisfactorily testified to respondent’s character and residence;
Demonstrated engagement in a lucrative profession/business (automobile parts sales) supported by income tax returns.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied in its June 5, 2014 Resolution.

The non-filing of the Declaration of Intention and absence of Certificate of Arrival are fatal defects;
Respondent was not lawfully exempt from filing the Declaration as he was not born in the Philippines and had not resided continuously for 30 years prior to the petition filing;
The Certificate of Arrival is indispensable to prove lawful entry;
The petitioner-appellee’s claimed business and income were not sufficient or proven;
The character witnesses were not credible and did not have sufficient knowledge of respondent’s conduct.

Respondent countered that he was exempt from filing the Declaration of Intention due to over 30 years of continuous residence since 1973 and that the Certificate of Arrival is just part of the Declaration filing and no longer required; that his business and income were sufficient; and that the character witnesses were credible.

Whether the failure of respondent to file a Declaration of Intention with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as required under Section 5 of CA 473 is fatal to the petition for naturalization.
Whether the absence of a Certificate of Arrival attached to the Petition for Naturalization as required by Section 7 of CA 473 invalidates the petition.
Whether respondent’s claimed engagement in a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation was sufficiently proven.
Whether respondent failed to present at least two credible character witnesses who have personal knowledge of his residence and conduct as required by law.