Naturalization (2)

THIS is a classic example on complying with the requirements to apply for naturalization by a foreigner in the Philippines.

Huang Te Fu alias Robert Uy, is a Chinese businessman who is married to a Filipina, and his family’s business is zipper manufacturing. In his petition for naturalization with the Regional Trial Court, he proved that the resided in the Philippines continuously for 23 years, obtained primary, secondary and tertiary education in Philippine schools, and derived a PhP15,000 monthly income from his family’s zipper manufacturing business as an employee.

The RTC granted his petition but the Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals who sustained the RTC Decision. The SolGen appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that Robert Uy does not possess a lucrative trade or profession, is not included in the payroll of the zipper business of which he claims to be an employee, does not have sufficient monthly income, and falsely misrepresented himself as a Filipino in a Deed of Sale of a land in Antipolo City, and that his 2002, 2003 and 2004 income tax returns reveal that his monthly income differs from his monthly income as declared in his petition for naturalization.

The Supreme Court, on review ruled that Huang indeed is not engaged in a lucrative business or profession. His monthly income of P15,000.00 is not enough to support his family. As admitted by Huang, most of his family’s daily expenses are still shouldered by his parents who own the zipper manufacturing business which employs him. This simply means that Huang continues to be a burden to, and a charge upon, his parents. He lives on the charity of his parents. His non-inclusion in the payroll of the zipper business means that it is either his intent to evade the payment of taxes or an attempt to circumvent labor laws in employment of foreigners, or the difference in the income tax return declarations were to avoid paying the proper tax.

Huang’s misdeclaration as a Filipino in the deed of sale of the Antipolo land is proof of Huang’s lack of good moral character. As a foreigner living in a foreign land, Huang should conduct himself accordingly in this country – with care, circumspect, and respect for the laws of the host.

Also, Huang’s deliberate non-inclusion in the payroll of the zipper business of which he pretends to be the manager, and his consent to be a part of such scheme, reflects negatively on his moral character. It shows proclivity for untruthfulness and dishonesty, and an unreserved willingness and readiness to violate Philippine laws. The RTC decision was reversed and Huang’s application for naturalization was dismissed. This was the ruling in Republic versus Huang Te Fu (G.R. No. 200983, March 18, 2015).

So the next time a foreigner applies for naturalization, he should make sure that he possesses all the requirements, and not make any misdeclaration of facts.

E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com