Republic vs Ong Ruling: No, the court held that a careful review of the

extant records suffices to hold that respondent Ong has not

proven his passion of a “known lucrative trade, possession
Topic: Burden of Proof, Naturalization – requirement of or lawful occupation” to qualify for naturalization.
lucrative trade or profession not proven Based on jurisprudence, the qualification of “some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation” means
“not only that the person having the employment gets
Facts: enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown
that the employment gives one an income such that there
1) The respondent, Kerry Lao Ong, filed for a
is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses
petition for naturalization in 1996.
as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the
2) Ong was born in Cebu City to Chinese parents.
event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and
He was raised and educated in the Philippines,
thus avoid one’s becoming the object of charity or a public
having studied in the Sacred Heart School for
charge. It has been held that in determining the existence
Boys in Cebu, and the Ateneo de Manila
of a lucrative income, the courts should consider only the
University. In 1981, he married Grezilda Yap,
applicant’s income; his or her spouse’s income should not
also a Chinese citizen, and fathered four
be included in the assessment.
children, which upon filing of petition were all of
school age, and were enrolled in exclusive The applicant provided no documentary evidence, like
schools in Cebu. business permits, registration, official receipts, or other
3) n his petition, he alleged that he is a business records to demonstrate his proprietorship or
“businessman/business manager,” and has been participation in a business. Instead, Ong relied on his
since 1989. However, when he testified, he general assertions to prove his possession of “some known
alleged that he has been a businessman since lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation.” Bare,
after he graduated from college in 1978. He general assertions cannot discharge the burden of proof
made no mention of the nature of his “business.” that is required of an applicant for naturalization.
He also alleged that he earns an average annual
income of P150,000.00, and presented four tax
returns as “proof” of said income (amounting to
P60,000.00, P118,000.00, P118,000.00 and
P128,000.00).
4) The RTC granted his petition and was admitted
as a citizen of the Philippines
5) The republic through the OSG, appealed the
decision to the CA on the following grounds:

 Ong did not prove his allegation that he

was earning Php150,000 a year
 He did not present evidence of the
nature of his profession
 He does not own real property
 His alleged income cannot be
considered lucrative
 As such he is not qualified to possess a
definite and existing business or trade.
6) The CA denied the OSG’s petition

Issue: Whether or not Respondent Ong proved that he has

some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful
occupation in accordance with Section 2, fourth paragraph
of the Revised Naturalization Law?