Case Summary (G.R. No. 127240)
Facts
Petitioner alleged compliance with qualifications in Section 2 and the absence of disqualifications in Section 3 of CA 473. He testified to his employment, business activities, family life, and published his petition and annexes in accordance with the law. Prosecutor Moran declined to present contrary evidence, commending petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine history. Trial court admitted petitioner to citizenship on August 25, 1999.
State’s Appeal Contentions
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that petitioner:
- Failed to state all names (omitted the alias “Loreto Chia Ong” used since childhood).
- Omitted former residences (“J.M. Basa St.” and “Alimodian, Iloilo”) in violation of Section 7, CA 473.
- Did not conduct himself in a “proper and irreproachable manner” by cohabiting and having children out of wedlock.
- Lacked a known lucrative occupation and misrepresented or underreported his income.
- Relied on documentary evidence not formally offered at trial (1977 naturalization petition, income tax returns, marriage contract, joint affidavit, immigrant certificate of residence).
Court of Appeals Decision
The appellate court reversed, holding that:
– In naturalization cases the State may raise issues and submit documents for the first time on appeal.
– Omission of any alias is mandatory ground for denial (to allow third parties to oppose).
– Failure to list all residences defeats public notice and investigation.
– An eight-year “live-in” relationship and illegitimate children violate the requirement of “proper and irreproachable” conduct.
– Income of ₱5,000 (exclusive of bonuses) is not “lucrative” and inability to file tax returns confirms insufficiency.
Issues on Review
- Whether documents annexed by the State’s brief may be considered on appeal.
- Whether petitioner’s omission of an alias and former residences is fatal.
- Whether petitioner’s cohabitation constitutes disqualifying conduct.
- Whether petitioner’s income is insufficient under CA 473.
- Whether strict compliance with publication requirements may be relaxed by “substantial compliance.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Evidence-Offer Rule
Rule 132, Section 34 (formal offer) does not apply to naturalization proceedings by virtue of Rule 1, Section 4. Reliance on annexed public documents on appeal is both practicable and consistent with the absence of res judicata in naturalization. Petitioner retained the opportunity to object to authenticity in his appellate brief but failed to substantiate any irregularity. Public documents executed under oath are presumed authentic.
Alias and Residences
CA 473, Section 7, mandates that all names and former residences be stated. Strict construction in favor of the State bars “substantial compliance.” Failure to comply defeats public noti
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127240)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Ong Chia was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China, and arrived in Manila in 1932 at age nine.
- He remained in the Philippines, found employment, established his own business, and married a Filipina, with whom he had four children.
- On July 4, 1989, at age 66, he filed a verified petition for naturalization under C.A. No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law, as amended), declaring compliance with Article 2 (qualifications) and absence of disqualifications under Article 3.
- He disclosed a prior, unacted‐upon petition under Letter of Instruction No. 270, SCN Case No. 031776, which stalled after the 1986 revolution.
- During trial, petitioner and three witnesses testified; the State’s prosecutor, impressed by petitioner’s knowledge and character, declined to present counter‐evidence.
- On August 25, 1999, the Regional Trial Court (Koronadal, Branch 24) granted the petition, admitting Ong Chia to Philippine citizenship.
State’s Grounds of Appeal
- Alleged failure to state all names by which petitioner was or had been known.
- Omission of former places of residence in violation of Section 7, Article 7 of C.A. No. 473.
- Claim that petitioner did not conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner throughout his stay, contrary to Article 2.
- Assertion that petitioner’s trade or occupation was not lucrative and that his declared incomes were insufficient or misrepresented.
- Failure to support the petition with required documentary evidence.
- Attached documents on appeal:
• A 1977 petition (SCN Case No. 031767) indicating the alias “Loreto Chia Ong.”
• Income tax returns from 1973 to 1977 to show low net earnings.
• A 1977 marriage contract and joint affidavit showing cohabitation since 1953 without a valid license.
• Immigrant Certificate of Residence indicating “J.M. Basa Street, Iloilo,” omitted from the 1989 petition.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Held that in nat