Case Digest (G.R. No. 212785)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Go Pei Hung, G.R. No. 212785, April 04, 2018, First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The petition arises from a Petition for Naturalization filed by respondent Go Pei Hung (a British subject and Hong Kong resident) on December 3, 2007, docketed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 16, as Naturalization Case No. 07-118391.After trial the RTC rendered a July 21, 2010 Decision granting respondent’s petition, finding that he satisfied the qualifications in Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Revised Naturalization Law, "CA 473"), relied on the testimonies of two character witnesses, and set a two-year period under Republic Act No. 530 with a hearing to determine continued compliance. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 97542.
On February 28, 2014 the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding among other things that respondent was exempt from filing the Declaration of Intention under Section 6 of CA 473 because he had resided in the Philippines since 1973 and had attended Philippine schools; that the Certificate of Arrival was a component of the Declaration of Intention and thus unnecessary given the exemption; that respondent had established a lucrative trade by evidence including income tax returns and testimony; and that his two witnesses were credible. The CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration in a June 5, 2014 Resolution.
The Republic filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the CA decisions. The Supreme Court First Division (Del Castillo, J.) granted the petition, reversed the CA, and dismissed respondent’s naturalization petition f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the failure to attach a Certificate of Arrival to the Petition for Naturalization render respondent’s petition incomplete and therefore fatal under Section 7 of CA 473?
- If respondent claimed exemption from filing a Declaration of Intention under Section 6 of CA 473, does that exemption negate the requirement to attach the Certificate of Arrival?
- Did respondent prove that he had a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation as required by CA 473?
- Were the two witnesses presented by respondent sufficiently credible to satisfy the a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)