G.R. No. 211118 – 828 Phil. 639 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – People; Citizenship – Naturalization; Judicial Naturalization – “Lucrative Trade” Requirement
In 2008, Manish Mahtani, an Indian, filed a petition for naturalization. He alleged, among others, that (1) he has been a long time resident of the Philippines, (2) he lives in Alabang with his family, (3) his children are being educated in DepEd sanctioned schools, and (4) as Vice President of Sprint International, Inc. (exclusive distributor of Speedo swimwear), he has a lucrative occupation.
His petition was granted by the trial court as it ruled that Mahtani has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The Solicitor General, after their motion for reconsideration was denied, appealed the decision of the trial court on the ground that Mahtani failed to prove that he has a lucrative occupation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mahtani may be naturalized.
HELD: No. The requirement that an alien who wants to be naturalized as a Filipino must be engaged in lucrative trade, profession, or occupation is provided for in Commonwealth Act No. 473 (An Act to Provide for the Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Naturalization).
Thus, it must be shown that the employment gives the alien an income such that there is an appreciable margin of his or her income over his or her expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid him or her becoming the object of charity or a public charge.
In this case, Mahtani did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim that he has a lucrative occupation. The fact that he lives in Alabang or that he belongs in exclusive affluent groups only proves that he and his family live in comfort or that their cost of living is above that of an average person or family.
Why so strict?
The admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that our Republic can confer upon an alien. It is everyone’s duty, especially the courts, to ensure that this valuable privilege be not bestowed except upon a person fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with the law. In as early as the 1960’s, the Supreme Court has already been strict in the adjudication of an application for conferment of citizenship. It was consistently held that in matters of privilege, no presumption can be indulged in favor of a claimant. Neither is the absence of opposition an excuse for scrutinizing attentively the records of a petition for naturalization. Courts must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings are imbued with the highest public interest. The courts are mandated to see to it that the letter and spirit of the law are satisfied beyond any doubt. Thus, naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. Corollary, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of law.
