SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.127240.March27,2000]

ONGCHIA,petitioner,vs.REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESandTHECOURTOF
APPEALS,respondents.marie

DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:

Thisisapetitionforreviewofthedecision[1]oftheCourtofAppealsreversingthedecisionofthe
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch24,Koronadal,SouthCotabato[2]admittingpetitionerOngChiato
Philippinescitizenship.

Thefactsareasfollows:

PetitionerwasbornonJanuary1,1923inAmoy,China.In1932,asanineyearoldboy,hearrivedat
theportofManilaonboardthevessel"Angking."Sincethen,hehasstayedinthePhilippineswhere
hefoundemploymentandeventuallystartedhisownbusiness,marriedaFilipina,withwhomhehad
fourchildren.OnJuly4,1989,attheageof66,hefiledaverifiedpetitiontobeadmittedasaFilipino
citizenunderC.A.No.473,otherwiseknownastheRevisedNaturalizationLaw,asamended.
Petitioner,afterstatinghisqualificationsasrequiredin2,andlackofthedisqualificationsenumerated
in3ofthelaw,stated

17.Thathehasheretoforemade(a)petitionforcitizenshipundertheprovisionsof
LetterofInstructionNo.270withtheSpecialCommitteeonNaturalization,Officeofthe
SolicitorGeneral,Manila,docketedasSCNCaseNo.031776,butthesamewasnot
acteduponowingtothefactthatthesaidSpecialCommitteeonNaturalizationwasnot
reconstitutedaftertheFebruary,1986revolutionsuchthatprocessingofpetitionsfor
naturalizationbyadministrativeprocesswassuspended

Duringthehearings,petitionertestifiedastohisqualificationsandpresentedthreewitnessesto
corroboratehistestimony.SoimpressedwasProsecutorIsaacAlveroV.Moranwiththetestimonyof
petitionerthat,uponbeingaskedbythecourtwhethertheStateintendedtopresentanywitness
againsthim,heremarked:novero

Actually,YourHonor,withthetestimonyofthepetitionerhimselfwhichisrather
surprising,inthesensethatheseemstobewellversedwiththemajorportionofthe
historyofthePhilippines,so,onourpart,weareconvinced,YourHonorPlease,that
petitionerreallydeservestobeadmittedasacitizenofthePhilippines.Andforthis
reason,wedonotwishtopresentanyevidencetocounteractorrefutethetestimonyof
thewitnessesforthepetitioner,aswellasthepetitionerhimself.[3]

Accordingly,onAugust25,1999,thetrialcourtgrantedthepetitionandadmittedpetitionerto
Philippinecitizenship.TheState,however,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,appealed
contendingthatpetitioner:(1)failedtostateallthenamesbywhichheisorhadbeenknown(2)
failedtostateallhisformerplacesofresidenceinviolationofC.A.No.473,7(3)failedtoconduct
himselfinaproperandirreproachablemannerduringhisentirestayinthePhilippines,inviolationof
2(4)hasnoknownlucrativetradeoroccupationandhispreviousincomeshavebeeninsufficientor
misdeclared,alsoincontraventionof2and(5)failedtosupporthispetitionwiththeappropriate
documentaryevidence.[4]

AnnexedtotheState'sappellant'sbriefwasacopyofa1977petitionfornaturalizationfiledby
petitionerwiththeSpecialCommitteeonNaturalizationinSCNCaseNo.031767,[5]inwhichpetitioner
statedthatinadditiontohisnameof"OngChia,"hehadlikewisebeenknownsincechildhoodas
"LoretoChiaOng."Aspetitioner,however,failedtostatethisothernameinhis1989petitionfor
naturalization,itwascontendedthathispetitionmustfail.[6]Thestatealsoannexedincometax
returns[7]allegedlyfiledbypetitionerfrom1973to1977toshowthathisnetincomecouldhardly
supporthimselfandhisfamily.Toprovethatpetitionerfailedtoconducthimselfinaproperand
irreproachablemannerduringhisstayinthePhilippines,theStatecontendedthat,althoughpetitioner
claimedthatheandRamonaVillaruelhadbeenmarriedtwice,oncebeforeajudgein1953,andthen
againinchurchin1977,petitioneractuallylivedwithhiswifewithoutthebenefitofmarriagefrom
1953untiltheyweremarriedin1977.Itwasallegedthatpetitionerfailedtopresenthis1953marriage
contract,iftherebeany.TheStatealsoannexedacopyofpetitioner's1977marriagecontract[8]anda
JointAffidavit[9]executedbypetitionerandhiswife.Thesedocumentsshowthatwhenpetitioner
marriedRamonaVillaruelonFebruary23,1977,nomarriagelicensehadbeenrequiredin
accordancewithArt.76oftheCivilCodebecausepetitionerandRamonaVillaruelhadbeenliving
togetherashusbandandwifesince1953withoutthebenefitofmarriage.This,accordingtotheState,
belieshisclaimthatwhenhestartedlivingwithhiswifein1953,theyhadalreadybeenmarried.ella

TheStatealsoarguedthat,asshownbypetitioner'sImmigrantCertificateofResidence,[10]petitioner
residedat"J.M.BasaStreet,Iloilo,"buthedidnotincludesaidaddressinhispetition.

OnNovember15,1996,theCourtofAppealsrendereditsdecisionwhich,asalreadynoted,reversed
thetrialcourtanddeniedpetitioner'sapplicationfornaturalization.Itruledthatduetotheimportance
ofnaturalizationcases,theStateisnotprecludedfromraisingquestionsnotpresentedinthelower
courtandbroughtupforthefirsttimeonappeal.[11]Theappellatecourtheld:

AscorrectlyobservedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,petitionerOngChiafailedto
stateinthispresentpetitionfornaturalizationhisothername,"LORETOCHIAONG,"
whichnameappearedinhispreviousapplicationunderLetterofInstructionNo.270.
Namesandpseudonymsmustbestatedinthepetitionfornaturalizationandfailureto
includethesamemilitatesagainstadecisioninhisfavor...Thisisamandatory
requirementtoallowthosepersonswhoknow(petitioner)bythoseothernamestocome
forwardandinformtheauthoritiesofanylegalobjectionwhichmightadverselyaffecthis
applicationforcitizenship.

Furthermore,OngChiafailedtodiscloseinhispetitionfornaturalizationthatheformerly
residedin"J.M.BasaSt.,Iloilo"and"Alimodian,Iloilo."Section7oftheRevised
NaturalizationLawrequirestheapplicanttostateinhispetition"hispresentandformer
placesofresidence."Thisrequirementismandatoryandfailureofthepetitionerto
complywithitisfataltothepetition.AsexplainedbytheCourt,thereasonforthe
provisionistogivethepublic,aswellastheinvestigatingagenciesofthegovernment,
uponthepublicationofthepetition,anopportunitytobeinformedthereofandvoicetheir
objectionsagainstthepetitioner.Byfailingtocomplywiththisprovision,thepetitioneris
deprivingthepublicandsaidagenciesofsuchopportunity,thusdefeatingthepurposeof
thelaw

OngChiahadnotalsoconductedhimselfinaproperandirreproachablemannerwhen
helivedinwithhiswifeforseveralyears,andsiredfourchildrenoutofwedlock.Ithas
beentheconsistentrulingthatthe"applicant's8yearcohabitationwithhiswifewithout
thebenefitofclergyandbegettingbyherthreechildrenoutofwedlockisaconductfar
frombeingproperandirreproachableasrequiredbytheRevisedNaturalizationLaw",
 andthereforedisqualifieshimfrombecomingacitizenofthePhilippinesby
naturalizationnigel

Lastly,petitionerOngChia'sallegedannualincomein1961ofP5,000.00,exclusiveof
bonuses,commissionsandallowances,isnotlucrativeincome.Hisfailuretofilean
incometaxreturn"becauseheisnotliableforincometaxyet"confirmsthathisincome
islow..."Itisnotonlythatthepersonhavingtheemploymentgetsenoughforhis
ordinarynecessitiesinlife.Itmustbeshownthattheemploymentgivesoneanincome
suchthatthereisanappreciablemarginofhisincomeoverexpensesastobeableto
provideforanadequatesupportintheeventofunemployment,sickness,ordisabilityto
workandthusavoidone'sbecomingtheobjectofcharityorpubliccharge."...Nowthat
theyareintheiroldage,petitionerOngChiaandhiswifearelivingontheallowance
giventothembytheirchildren.Themonthlypensiongivenbytheelderchildrenofthe
applicantcannotbeaddedtohisincometomakeitlucrativebecauselikebonuses,
commissionsandallowances,saidpensionsarecontingent,speculativeandprecarious

Hence,thispetitionbasedonthefollowingassignmentoferrors:

I.THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONINRULINGTHAT
INNATURALIZATIONCASES,THEAPPELLATECOURTCANDENYAN
APPLCATIONFORPHILIPPINECITIZENSHIPONTHEBASISOFDOCUMENTSNOT
PRESENTEDBEFORETHETRIALCOURTANDNOTFORMINGPARTOFTHE
RECORDSOFTHECASE.

II.THEFINDINGOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSTHATTHEPETITIONERHASBEEN
KNOWNBYSOMEOTHERNAMENOTSTATEDINHISPETITIONISNOT
SUPPORTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEONRECORD.

III.CONTRARYTOTHEFINDINGOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,THEPETITIONER
STATEDINHISPETITIONANDITSANNEXESHISPRESENTANDFORMER
PLACESOFRESIDENCE.

IV.THEFINDINGOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSTHATTHEPETITIONERFAILEDTO
CONDUCTHIMSELFINAPROPERANDIRREPROACHABLEMANNERISNOT
SUPPORTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEONRECORD.brando

Petitioner'sprincipalcontentionisthattheappellatecourterredinconsideringthedocumentswhich
hadmerelybeenannexedbytheStatetoitsappellant'sbriefand,onthebasisofwhich,justifiedthe
reversalofthetrialcourt'sdecision.Nothavingbeenpresentedandformallyofferedasevidence,they
aremere"scrap(s)ofpaperdevoidofanyevidentiaryvalue,"[12]soitwasargued,becauseunderRule
132,34oftheRevisedRulesonEvidence,thecourtshallconsidernoevidencewhichhasnotbeen
formallyoffered.

Thecontentionhasnomerit.PetitionerfailedtonoteRule143[13]oftheRulesofCourtwhichprovides
that

Theserulesshallnotapplytolandregistration,cadastralandelectioncases,
naturalizationandinsolvencyproceedings,andothercasesnothereinprovidedfor,
exceptbyanalogyorinasuppletorycharacterandwheneverpracticableand
convenient.(Emphasisadded)

Prescindingfromtheabove,theruleonformalofferofevidence(Rule132,34)nowbeinginvokedby
petitionerisclearlynotapplicabletothepresentcaseinvolvingapetitionfornaturalization.Theonly
instancewhensaidrulesmaybeappliedbyanalogyorsuppletorilyinsuchcasesiswhenitis
"practicableandconvenient."Thatisnotthecasehere,sincerelianceuponthedocumentspresented
bytheStateforthefirsttimeonappeal,infact,appearstobethemorepracticalandconvenient
courseofactionconsideringthatdecisioninnaturalizationproceedingsarenotcoveredbytheruleon
resjudicata.[14]Consequently,afinalfavorablejudgmentdoesnotprecludetheStatefromlateron
movingforarevocationofthegrantofnaturalizationonthebasisofthesamedocuments.

PetitionerclaimsthatasaresultofthefailureoftheStatetopresentandformallyofferits
documentaryevidencebeforethetrialcourt,hewasdeniedtherighttoobjectagainsttheir
authenticity,effectivelydeprivinghimofhisfundamentalrighttoproceduraldueprocess.[15]Weare
notpersuaded.Indeed,thereasonfortheruleprohibitingtheadmissionofevidencewhichhasnot
beenformallyofferedistoaffordtheoppositepartythechancetoobjecttotheiradmissibility.[16]
Petitionercannotclaimthathewasdeprivedoftherighttoobjecttotheauthenticityofthedocuments
submittedtotheappellatecourtbytheState.Hecouldhaveincludedhisobjections,ashe,infact,
did,inthebriefhefiledwiththeCourtofAppeals,thus:nigella

Theauthenticityoftheallegedpetitionfornaturalization(SCNCaseNo.031767)which
wassupposedlyfiledbyOngChiaunderLOI270hasnotbeenestablished.Infact,the
casenumberoftheallegedpetitionfornaturalizationis031767whilethecasenumber
ofthepetitionactuallyfiledbytheappelleeis031776.Thus,saiddocumentistotally
unreliableandshouldnotbeconsideredbytheHonorableCourtinresolvingtheinstant
appeal.[17]

Indeed,theobjectionisflimsyastheallegeddiscrepancyistrivial,and,atmost,canbeaccountedfor
asatypographicalerroronthepartofpetitionerhimself.That"SCNCaseNo.031767,"acopyof
whichwasannexedtothepetition,isthecorrectcasenumberisconfirmedbytheEvaluationSheet[18]
oftheSpecialCommitteeonNaturalizationwhichwasalsodocketedas"SCNCaseNo.031767."
Otherthanthis,petitionerofferednoevidencetodisprovetheauthenticityofthedocumentspresented
bytheState.

Furthermore,theCourtnotesthatthesedocumentsnamely,thepetitioninSCNCaseNo.031767,
petitioner'smarriagecontract,thejointaffidavitexecutedbyhimandhiswife,andpetitioner'sincome
taxreturnsareallpublicdocuments.Assuch,theyhavebeenexecutedunderoath.Theyarethus
reliable.Sincepetitionerfailedtomakesatisfactoryshowingofanyflaworirregularitythatmaycast
doubtontheauthenticityofthesedocuments,itisourconclusionthattheappellatecourtdidnoterrin
relyinguponthem.

Onelastpoint.Theabovediscussionwouldhavebeenenoughtodisposeofthiscase,buttosettleall
theissuesraised,weshallbrieflydiscusstheeffectofpetitioner'sfailuretoincludetheaddress"J.M.
BasaSt.,Iloilo"inhispetition,inaccordancewith7,C.A.No.473.Thisaddressappearson
petitioner'sImmigrantCertificateofResidence,adocumentwhichformspartoftherecordsasAnnex
Aofhis1989petitionfornaturalization.Petitioneradmitsthathefailedtomentionsaidaddressinhis
petition,butarguesthatsincetheImmigrantCertificateofResidencecontainingithadbeenfully
published,[19]withthepetitionandtheotherannexes,suchpublicationconstitutessubstantial
compliancewith7.[20]Thisisallegedlybecausethepublicationeffectivelysatisfiedtheobjective
soughttobeachievedbysuchrequirement,i.e.,togiveinvestigatingagenciesofthegovernmentthe
opportunitytocheckonthebackgroundoftheapplicantandpreventsuppressionofinformation
regardinganypossiblemisbehavioronhispartinanycommunitywherehemayhavelivedatone
timeoranother.[21]Itissettled,however,thatnaturalizationlawsshouldberigidlyenforcedandstrictly
construedinfavorofthegovernmentandagainsttheapplicant.[22]AsnotedbytheState,C.A.No.
473,7clearlyprovidesthattheapplicantfornaturalizationshallsetforthinthepetitionhispresentand
formerplacesofresidence.[23]Thisprovisionandtheruleofstrictapplicationofthelawin
naturalizationcasesdefeatpetitioner'sargumentof"substantialcompliance"withtherequirement
undertheRevisedNaturalizationLaw.Onthisgroundalone,theinstantpetitionoughttobedenied.
marinella
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMEDandtheinstantpetitionishereby
DENIED.

SOORDERED.

Bellosillo,(Chairman),Quisumbing,Buena,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.francis

[1] PerJusticeBernardoLl.Salas,andconcurredinbyJusticesGloriaC.ParasandMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez.
[2] PresidedbyJudgeRodolfoC.Soledad.
[3] TSN,p.152,June27,1991.(Emphasisadded)
[4] Appellant'sBrief,pp.2122CARollo,pp.3536.
[5] AnnexBId.,pp.129138.
[6] CitingWattv.Republic,46SCRA683(1972)Id.,p.37.
[7] AnnexesF,F1,F2,F3andF4Id.,pp.144157.
[8] AnnexDId.,p.139.
[9] AnnexEId.,p.140.
[10] AnnexARecords,p.16.
[11] CADecision,P.8Rollo,p.50.Citationsomitted.
[12] Petition,p.21Id.,p.29.
[13] NowfoundunderRule1,4ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
[14] Republicv.Guy,115SCRA244(1982).
[15] Petition,p.17Rollo,p.25.
[16] SeePeninsulaConstruction,Inc.v.Eisma,194SCRA667(1991).
[17] Appellee'sBrief,p.13CARollo,p.184.
[18] AnnexCCARollo,p.133.Saidevaluationsheetrecommendedthatthepetitionbedismissedaspetitionerfailedtomeetthe
requirementsunderLOI491becausehisincomeisinsufficientforhissupportandthatofhisfamilyandalsobecausehefailedto
showthathebelievesintheprinciplesunderlyingtheConstitution.
[19] IntheOfficialGazetteandintheSaranganiJournal.
[20] Petition,p.22Rollo,p.30.
[21] Wattv.Republic,supra.
[22] ChanChenv.Republic,109Phil.940(1960),citingCoQuingv.Republic,104Phil.889(1958)andCo.v.Republic,108Phil.
265(1960).
[23] Comment,p.23Rollo,p.110.