Republic vs.

Lao,

G.R. No. 205218

FACTS:

The respondent, Kerry Lao Ong, filed for a petition for naturalization in 1996.

Ong was born in Cebu City to Chinese parents. He was raised and educated in the Philippines, having
studied in the Sacred Heart School for Boys in Cebu, and the Ateneo de Manila University. In 1981, he
married Grezilda Yap, also a Chinese citizen, and fathered four children, which upon filing of petition
were all of school age, and were enrolled in exclusive schools in Cebu.

In his petition, he alleged that he is a “businessman/business manager,” and has been since 1989.
However, when he testified, he alleged that he has been a businessman since after he graduated from
college in 1978. He made no mention of the nature of his “business.” 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).

In 2001, the trial court granted his petition, and was admitted as a citizen of the Republic of the
Philippines.

In 2003, The Republic, through the Solicitor General appealed the decision to the CA, which was then
denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ong has proved that he has some lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation in
accordance with Section 2, Paragraph 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

RULING:

The Court held that Naturalization laws should be 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.

Based on jurisprudence, the qualification of “some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful
occupation” means “not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary
necessities in life. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is an
appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in
the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one’s becoming the object of
charity or a public charge. It has been held that in determining the existence of a lucrative income, the
courts should consider only the applicant’s income; his or her spouse’s income should not be included
in the assessment.

The applicant provided no documentary evidence, like business permits, registration, official receipts, or
other business records to demonstrate his proprietorship or participation in a business. Instead, Ong
relied on his general assertions to prove his possession of “some known lucrative trade, profession or
lawful occupation.” Bare, general assertions cannot discharge the burden of proof that is required of
an applicant for naturalization.

Clearly, therefore, respondent Ong failed to prove that he possesses the qualification of a known
lucrative trade provided in Section 2, fourth paragraph, of the Revised Naturalization Law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition of the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The
Petition for Naturalization of Kerry Lao Ong is DENIED for failure to comply with Section 2, fourth
paragraph, of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.