Republic vs.

Liao [October 20, 1992]

Appeal from the order of COFI of Manila

Facts:
William Li Yao, a Chinese national, filed for a petition for naturalization on June 3, 1949.In the decision of the court it
was held that he possesses all the qualifications necessary to become a naturalized Filipino but the decision shall not
become executory until after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening
period, the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has
not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to
the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies.

November 20, 1952 – prayed for the execution of the decision of the court and the court allowed him to take his oath
of allegiance as Filipino.

January 5, 1968 – Solicitor General filed a motion to cancel the certificate of naturalization of Yao on the ground that
it was fraudulently and illegally obtained.

Lower court cancelled his certificate of naturalization on the basis that he evaded payment of taxes due to the
government by under declaration of his income. Yao filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.

January 7, 1972 -filed a notice of appeal to the SC. After both parties filed their briefs Li Yao died but the case is not
moot because its disposition would have grave implications for the wife and children of Li Yao.

Issue: WON the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization of Li Yao made by the government through the office of
the Solicitor General is valid.

Held: Yes.

Ratio:
Based on section 18(a) of Com. Act no. 473 known as the Revised Naturalization Act, which provides that a
naturalization certificate may be cancelled if it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or
illegally.

A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein, not constituting res
judicata as to any matter that would support a judgment cancelling a certificate of naturalization on the ground of illegal
or fraudulent procurement thereof.

Lim Eng Yu vs. Republic – concealment of applicant’s income to evade payment of lawful taxes shows that his moral
character is not irreproachable, thus disqualifying him for naturalization.

Even if the Li Yao paid his tax liability via the tax amnesty program its legal effect would merely remove any civil,
criminal or administrative liability on the part of the taxpayer, only insofar as his tax case is concerned. Tax amnesty
does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds
for denaturalization.

Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in favor of the government and against the applicant. When the
applicant failed to meet the qualifications required for naturalization, the latter is not entitled to Filipino citizens.