REPUBLIC vs LI YAO
G.R.
No. L-35947, October 20, 1992
Facts:
William Li Yao, a
Chinese national, filed a petition for naturalization on June 3, 1949. After
hearing, the Court granted the petition and declared Li Yao a naturalized
Filipino citizen. Li Yao subsequently took his oath of allegiance.
About fifteen years
later, or on January 5, 1968, the Republic of the Philippines, through the
Solicitor General, filed a motion to cancel William Li Yao's certificate of
naturalization on the ground that it was fraudulently and illegally obtained.
Relying solely on the
ground that William Li Yao evaded the payment of lawful taxes due the
government by under-declaration of income as reflected in his income tax returns
for the years 1946-1951, the lower court granted the petition and cancelled the
Certificate of Naturalization of Li Yao.
Li Yao appealed. After
the parties had filed their respective briefs, Li Yao died.
Issues:
Whether or not the
cancellation of the certificate of naturalization of the deceased
petitioner-appellant William Li Yao made by the government through the Office
of the Solicitor General is valid.
Held:
Section 18(a) of Com.
Act No. 473, known as the Revised Naturalization Act provides that a
naturalization certificate may be cancelled "[i]f it is shown that said
naturalization certificate was obtained fraudelently and illegally."
It is indisputable
that a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently
discovered that the applicant therefore obtained it by misleading the court
upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation
of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds had conditions arising
subsequent to the granting of the certificate. Moreover, 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.
In ordering the
cancellation of the naturalization certificate previously issued to appellant,
the lower court sustained the government's motion for cancellation on the sole
finding that Li Yao had committed underdeclaration of income and underpayment
of income tax.
Assuming arguendo,
that appellant, as alleged, has fully paid or settled his tax liability under
P.D. No. 68 which granted a tax amnesty, such payment is not a sufficient
ground for lifting the order of the lower court of July 22, 1971 cancelling his
certificate of naturalization. The legal effect of payment under the decree is
merely the removal of any civil, criminal or administrative liability on the
part of the taxpayer, only insofar as his tax case is concerned.
In other words, the tax
amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral
character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization.
The lower court based
its order of cancellation of citizenship on the finding of evasion of payment
of lawful taxes which is sufficient ground, under Sec. 2 of the Revised
Naturalization Law requiring, among others, that applicant conduct himself
"in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines in his relation with constituted government as
well as with the community in which he is living," to strip him of his
citizenship without going into the other grounds for cancellation presented by
the Solicitor General.
Finally, taking into
account the fact that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in
favor of the Government and against the applicant, this Court has
repeatedly maintained the view that where the applicant failed to meet the
qualifications required for naturalization, the latter is not entitled to
Filipino citizenship. More specifically, the Court has had occasion to state:
"Admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the
Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that
should not be conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon
strict compliance with the law." Philippine citizenship is a pearl of
great price which should be cherished and not taken for granted. Once acquired,
its sheen must be burnished and not stained by any wrongdoing which could
constitute ample ground for divesting one of said citizenship. Hence,
compliance with all the requirements of the law must be proved to the
satisfaction of the Court and legislation by Congress.
0
Comments
