Republic of the Philippines vs. Go Pei Hung

An applicant for naturalization must attach a Certificate of Arrival to the Petition for Naturalization as required by Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473; failure to do so is fatal and warrants denial of the petition, even if the applicant claims exemption from filing a Declaration of Intention.

Go Pei Hung, a British subject and Hong Kong resident, sought Philippine citizenship by naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, the Revised Naturalization Law. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application. CA 473 prescribes qualifications and documentary requirements for naturalization, including a Declaration of Intention and a Certificate of Arrival, and Republic Act No. 530 provides that a grant of naturalization does not become final until after two years and another hearing.

Go Pei Hung, a British subject and Hong Kong resident, filed a Petition for Naturalization on December 3, 2007 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 16, docketed as Naturalization Case No. 07-118391. He sought Philippine citizenship under CA 473. In his petition, he stated that he had continuously resided in the Philippines starting in 1989 only, explaining that 1989 was the year he was officially issued a Certificate of Permanent Residence by the Bureau of Immigration, but that to be entitled to that status he had to have resided in the Philippines for a longer period. He claimed that he commenced residence in the Philippines in 1973 at 2277-B Luna Street, Pasay City, and that a year later he enrolled at the Philippine Pasay Chinese School, where he graduated from Grade VI in 1976. He alleged an average annual income of P165,000.00 as a businessman.

During the proceedings, Go Pei Hung presented two character witnesses, Lato Sy Lai and So An Ui Henry Sy, who testified that they came to know him in 1995 and were cross-examined by the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also marked and offered in evidence his Annual Income Tax Returns for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and testified that he helped in the business of his wife, Excel Parts Sales Center, located at 1161 R. Hidalgo Street, Quiapo, Manila, which sold automobile parts. It was undisputed that he did not file a Declaration of Intention with the Office of the Solicitor General and that no Certificate of Arrival was attached to his Petition for Naturalization. He claimed exemption from the Declaration of Intention under Section 6 of CA 473 on the ground that he had resided continuously in the Philippines since 1973, or for 34 years by 2007, and argued that the Certificate of Arrival was a mere component of the Declaration of Intention.

The RTC found that Go Pei Hung had complied with all the qualifications under Section 2 of CA 473, that there was no impediment to granting the petition, and that he had presented two credible persons who personally knew him to be a resident of the Philippines for the required period. It granted the petition on July 21, 2010 and set a hearing under Republic Act No. 530. On appeal, the CA found that Go Pei Hung had been residing in the Philippines earlier than 1989, counting from 1973, and that he had been continuously residing in the Philippines for 34 years by the time he filed his petition in 2007. It also found that he had proved a lucrative trade through the sale of automobile parts and that his two witnesses were credible.

• Declaration of Intention and Certificate of Arrival: Petitioner contended that naturalization should be denied because respondent failed to attach a Declaration of Intention and a Certificate of Arrival to his Petition for Naturalization, as required under CA 473.
• No Exemption from Declaration of Intention: Petitioner argued that respondent was not exempt from filing the Declaration of Intention because he was neither born in the Philippines nor had he resided therein for 30 years or more; the record showed he was born in Hong Kong and became a permanent Philippine resident only in 1989, less than 30 years before his 2007 filing.
• Certificate of Arrival: Petitioner maintained that the Certificate of Arrival is equally important because it prevents aliens who surreptitiously entered the country without the proper document or certificate of entry from acquiring citizenship by naturalization, and its absence renders the Petition for Naturalization null and void.
• Publication: Petitioner argued that the Petition for Naturalization was not validly published in its entirety.
• Lucrative Trade, Profession, or Occupation: Petitioner contended that respondent was not engaged in a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation, as he had an average annual income of P165,000.00 in 2007, or a monthly income of P13,750.00, which was insufficient for the support of his wife and three minor children, much less for his sole sustenance.
• Character Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the two witnesses presented in respondent's favor were not credible character witnesses because they resorted to mere generalizations and did not actually know respondent well, having come to know him only in 1995.
• Procedural Matter: Petitioner argued that although it did not attach the annexes to the copy of the instant Petition sent to respondent, those documents were known to respondent and had been in his possession throughout the proceedings.

• Procedural Defect: Respondent argued that the instant Petition should be denied because it violated Section 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as petitioner did not attach the annexes to the copy of its Petition sent to respondent; he also maintained that the Petition was without merit.
• Exemption from Declaration of Intention and Certificate of Arrival: Respondent argued that he was exempt from filing a Declaration of Intention and submitting a Certificate of Arrival because he had been a resident of the Philippines for more than 30 years, having arrived in the country in 1973 and residing therein since; petitioner's computation of his residency from 1989, reckoned from the issuance of his certificate of permanent residence, was incorrect.
• Certificate of Arrival as Component: Respondent argued that the Certificate of Arrival is a mere component part of the filing of the Declaration of Intention and was thus no longer required since he was exempt from filing the Declaration of Intention.
• Publication: Respondent argued that the Petition for Naturalization was validly published in accordance with the requirements of law.
• Lucrative Trade: Respondent argued that he was engaged in a lucrative trade, as since January 2010 he was already earning a monthly income of P50,000.00 as a commission sales executive.
• Character Witnesses: Respondent argued that his witnesses gave credible testimonies on his character and behavior.

• Declaration of Intention: Whether respondent's failure to file a Declaration of Intention with the Office of the Solicitor General, as required by Section 5 of CA 473, warranted denial of his Petition for Naturalization.
• Certificate of Arrival: Whether respondent's failure to state the details of his arrival in the Philippines and to attach a Certificate of Arrival to his Petition for Naturalization, as required by Section 7 of CA 473, warranted denial.
• Lucrative Trade, Profession, or Occupation: Whether respondent proved that he has a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation within the meaning of Section 2 of CA 473.
• Character Witnesses: Whether respondent presented during the hearing at least two credible persons as required by Section 7 of CA 473.
• Procedural Defect in Petition Copy: Whether the Republic's failure to attach annexes to the copy of its Petition sent to respondent violated Section 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and warranted denial of the Petition for Review.

• Declaration of Intention: Not reached. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve whether respondent was exempt from the Declaration of Intention because the absence of the Certificate of Arrival was independently fatal to the naturalization petition.
• Certificate of Arrival: Yes. Section 7 of CA 473 requires the Certificate of Arrival to be made part of the Petition for Naturalization; failure to attach it is fatal and renders the petition incomplete.
• Lucrative Trade, Profession, or Occupation: Not reached. The Court declined to resolve this issue after dismissing the petition on the Certificate of Arrival ground.
• Character Witnesses: Not reached. The Court likewise declined to resolve this issue after dismissing the petition on the Certificate of Arrival ground.
• Procedural Defect in Petition Copy: No. Any procedural infirmity in the copy of the Petition sent to respondent was rendered insignificant and moot by the national interest involved and the patent defect in the naturalization application.

• Declaration of Intention: The Court did not resolve whether respondent fell under the Section 6 exemption. It held that the Declaration of Intention and the Certificate of Arrival are entirely different requirements; the Certificate of Arrival is just as important because it proves that the applicant's entry to the country was not illegal. Thus, even if respondent was exempt from the Declaration of Intention, he still had to attach the Certificate of Arrival.
• Certificate of Arrival: Section 7 of CA 473 requires the petition to state the approximate date of arrival, the port of debarkation, and the name of the ship, and expressly provides that the certificate of arrival and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition. Respondent came to the country sometime in 1973, so he should have attached a Certificate of Arrival. The requirement is mandatory to prove that he entered the country legally; if he entered illegally, his stay would be unwarranted from the start, and no number of years of stay would validate the unlawful entry. Failure to attach the certificate is fatal, as held in Republic vs. Judge De la Rosa and related cases. Even respondent's acquisition of permanent resident status did not do away with the requirement, because naturalization requirements are different and separate from those for permanent residency. The Certificate of Arrival is not a mere component of the Declaration of Intention; it proves lawful entry. Without it, the Petition for Naturalization is incomplete and must be denied outright.
• Lucrative Trade, Profession, or Occupation: Not reached. The Court found no need to resolve the other issues after the Certificate of Arrival defect.
• Character Witnesses: Not reached. The Court found no need to resolve the other issues after the Certificate of Arrival defect.
• Procedural Defect in Petition Copy: The alleged failure to attach the annexes to the copy of the Petition sent to respondent was insignificant and moot because respondent's application for naturalization was patently defective for failure to attach the required Certificate of Arrival and involved the national interest, as well as the security and safety of the country and its citizens. Any procedural infirmities were superseded by the national interest, and technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights.

• Strict Construction and Full Compliance in Naturalization Proceedings — Naturalization laws are rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant; the burden of proof rests upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of law. The Court applied this doctrine by denying the petition because respondent failed to attach the mandatory Certificate of Arrival.
• Certificate of Arrival as a Mandatory and Jurisdictional Requirement — Under Section 7 of CA 473, the Certificate of Arrival and the Declaration of Intention must be made part of the Petition for Naturalization. The purpose is to prevent aliens who illegally entered the Philippines from acquiring citizenship by naturalization. Failure to attach the Certificate of Arrival is fatal. The Court applied this by holding that respondent's petition was incomplete and had to be dismissed outright.
• Naturalization as a Privilege, Not a Right — The opportunity to become a citizen by naturalization is a mere matter of grace, favor, or privilege extended by the State; the applicant has no natural, inherent, existing, or vested right to be admitted to Philippine citizenship. The only right is that conferred by statute, and the applicant must strictly comply with all statutory conditions. The Court applied this by treating the absence of one requirement as fatal.
• Public Interest in Naturalization Proceedings — Naturalization proceedings are infused with public interest; a grant of naturalization does not preclude reopening, is not res judicata, and issues not raised below may be entertained on appeal. The Court applied this by holding that procedural infirmities in the Republic's petition copy were moot and superseded by the national interest.
• Permanent Residency Does Not Excuse Naturalization Requirements — An application to become a naturalized Philippine citizen involves requirements different and separate from those for permanent residency. The Court applied this by ruling that respondent's permanent resident status did not do away with the Certificate of Arrival requirement.

• "A Petition for Naturalization must be denied when full and complete compliance with the requirements of Commonwealth Act. No. 473 (CA 473), or the Revised Naturalization Law, is not shown." — This opening statement frames the Court's core principle: naturalization requires strict and complete statutory compliance.
• "The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition." — Quoted from Section 7 of CA 473, this passage supplies the mandatory requirement whose violation was fatal to respondent's petition.
• "In naturalization proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the law. The opportunity of a foreigner to become a citizen by naturalization is a mere matter of grace, favor or privilege extended to him by the State; the applicant does not possess any natural, inherent, existing or vested right to be admitted to Philippine citizenship." — This passage states the burden of proof and the privilege doctrine that underpin the strict-compliance rule.
• "The absence of even a single requirement is fatal to an application for naturalization." — This concise formulation captures the Court's ratio on why the missing Certificate of Arrival required dismissal.

• Republic vs. Huang Te Fu, 756 Phil. 309, 321 (2015) — Cited for the rule that an applicant for naturalization must show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the naturalization law; naturalization laws are strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant, and the burden of proof rests on the applicant.
• Republic vs. Judge De la Rosa, 302 Phil. 829 (1994) — Held that failure to attach a copy of the applicant's certificate of arrival to the petition as required by Section 7 of CA 473 is fatal to the petition for naturalization.
• Chiu Tek Ye vs. Republic, 147 Phil. 165, 170-171 (1971) — Cited in De la Rosa for the purpose of the certificate of arrival requirement: to prevent aliens who illegally entered the Philippines from acquiring citizenship by naturalization.
• Republic vs. Cokeng, 132 Phil. 26, 32 (1968) — Cited for the proposition that naturalization granted without the filing of a certificate of arrival is illegally procured.
• Charm Chan vs. Republic, 108 Phil. 882, 887 (1960) — Cited for the mandatory nature of the certificate of arrival requirement and the rule that noncompliance violates the express mandate of the law.
• Coronel vs. Hon. Desierto, 448 Phil. 894, 903 (2003) — Cited for the principle that technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights.
• Republic vs. Li Ching Chung, 707 Phil. 231, 243-244 (2013) — Cited for the public-interest character of naturalization proceedings, including that a grant of naturalization is not res judicata and issues not raised below may be entertained on appeal.

• Section 7, Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) — Requires the Petition for Citizenship to state the approximate date of arrival, the port of debarkation, and the name of the ship, and expressly provides that the certificate of arrival and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition. Applied: respondent failed to attach the Certificate of Arrival, rendering his petition incomplete and fatally defective.
• Section 5, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Requires the applicant to file a Declaration of Intention with the Bureau of Justice, now the Office of the Solicitor General, one year prior to the filing of the petition. Applied: respondent did not file the Declaration of Intention but claimed exemption under Section 6.
• Section 6, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Exempts from the Declaration of Intention persons born in the Philippines who received primary and secondary education in public or recognized schools, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for 30 years or more before filing their application. Applied: respondent claimed exemption based on 34 years of residency; the Court did not resolve the exemption because the missing Certificate of Arrival was independently fatal.
• Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 473 — Sets the qualifications for naturalization, including age, continuous residence, good moral character, ownership of real estate or a lucrative trade, ability to speak and write English or Spanish and a principal Philippine language, and enrollment of minor children in recognized schools. Applied: the RTC found respondent complied, but the Supreme Court did not reach the issue because of the Certificate of Arrival defect.
• Republic Act No. 530 — Provides that a decision granting naturalization shall not become final and executory until after two years from promulgation and after another hearing to determine compliance with its requirements. Applied: the RTC set a hearing under this law, but the Supreme Court reversed the grant.
• Section 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Sets the contents of a petition for review, including the requirement that it be accompanied by material portions of the record. Applied: respondent argued the Republic violated this rule by not attaching annexes to the copy sent to him; the Court held the procedural infirmity moot in light of the national interest and the patent defect in the naturalization application.

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Tijam, JJ., concur. Sereno, C.J., was on leave. Leonardo-De Castro acted as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018; Bersamin was an additional member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who refused due to prior action as Solicitor General.