Consti II: case digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, movant-appellee, vs.WILLIAM LI YAO, petitioner-appellant.

Republic vs Li Yao (Cancellation of Philippine Citizenship) G.R. No. L-35947, October 20, 1992

Keywords: ·         William Li Yao was naturalized in 1949 but RP now wants to cancel the certificate of naturalization on ground that it was fraudulently obtained. He died after the filing of brief. ·         Lower court sustained the government's motion for cancellation on the ground that he committed underdeclaration of income and underpayment of income tax. ·         Settlement of tax liability under amnesty is not sufficient for reversing denaturalization

FACTS: William Li Yao, a Chinese national, filed a petition for naturalization in 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, 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.

ISSUE: WON the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization made by the government through the Office of the Solicitor General is valid.

RULING: 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." 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.

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.