"x x x.
In the case at bar, the controversy revolves around respondent Ong’s compliance with the qualification found in Section 2, fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law, which provides:
SECTION 2. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
x x x x
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
x x x x
“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.” His income should permit “him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization.”
x x x
“The paucity of evidence is unmistakable upon a reading of the trial court’s decision. The trial court held that respondent Ong “is a businessman engaged in lawful trade and business since 1989” but did not cite the evidence, which supports such finding. After poring over the records, the Court finds that the reason for the lack of citation is the absence of evidence to support such conclusion. The trial court’s conclusion that Ong has been a businessman since 1989 is only an assertion found in Ong’s petition for naturalization. But, on the witness stand, Ong did not affirm this assertion. Instead, he testified that he had been a businessman since he graduated from college, which was in 1978.
Further, the trial court, citing Exhibits U, V, W, and X (which are Ong’s tax returns), mistakenly found that Ong “derives an average annual income of more than One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos.” This conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The cited tax returns show that Ong’s gross annual income for the years 1994 to 1997 were P60,000.00, P118,000.00, P118,000.00, and P128,000.00, respectively. The average annual income from these tax returns is P106,000.00 only, not P150,000.00 as the trial court held. It appears that the trial court again derived its conclusion from an assertion in Ong’s petition, but not from the evidence.
As for the CA, it no longer ruled on the question whether Ong has a known business or trade. Instead, it ruled on the issue whether Ong’s income, as evidenced by his tax returns, can be considered lucrative in 1996. In determining this issue, the CA considered the ages of Ong’s children, the income that he earned in 1996, and the fact that Ong’s wife was also employed at that time. It then concluded that there is an appreciable margin of Ong’s income over his expenses.
The Court finds the appellate court’s decision erroneous. First, it should not have included the spouse’s income in its assessment of Ong’s lucrative income. Second, it failed to consider the following circumstances which have a bearing on Ong’s expenses vis-à-vis his income: (a) that Ong does not own real property; (b) that his proven average gross annual income around the time of his application, which was only P106,000.00, had to provide for the education of his four minor children; and (c) that Ong’s children were all studying in exclusive private schools in Cebu City. Third, the CA did not explain how it arrived at the conclusion that Ong’s income had an appreciable margin over his known expenses.
Ong’s gross income might have been sufficient to meet his family’s basic needs, but there is simply no sufficient proof that it was enough to create an appreciable margin of income over expenses. Without an appreciable margin of his income over his family’s expenses, his income cannot be expected to provide him and his family “with adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work.”
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.”
x x x."
See -
G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. KERRY LAO ONG, RESPONDENT.
