Republic of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE |
|
G.R. No. 175430 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* |
|
|
|
Acting Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., and |
|
|
|
PERLAS-BERNABE,** JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
KERRY LAO ONG, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
June 18, 2012 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O
N
Naturalization laws are strictly construed in the governments favor and
against the applicant.[1] The
applicant carries the burden of proving his full compliance with the
requirements of law.[2]
Before the Court is the Republics appeal of the
appellate courts Decision[3] dated
May 13, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 74794, which affirmed the trial courts grant of
citizenship to respondent Kerry Lao Ong (Ong).
The Court of Appeals (CA) held:
With all the foregoing, We find no cogent reason to
reverse the decision of the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the
SO ORDERED.[4]
Factual Antecedents
On November 26, 1996, respondent
Ong, then 38 years old,[5] filed a
Petition for Naturalization.[6] The case was docketed as Nat. Case No. 930
and assigned to Branch 9 of the
Respondent Ong was born at the
On February 1, 1981, he married
Griselda S. Yap, also a Chinese citizen.[24] They have four children,[25] namely,
Kerri Gail (born on April 15, 1983),[26]
Kimberley Grace (born on May 15, 1984),[27] Kyle
Gervin (born on November 4, 1986),[28] and
Kevin Griffith (born on August 21, 1993),[29] who were all
born and
raised in the
Ong has lived at the following
addresses:[33]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ong alleged in his petition that he
has been a businessman/business manager since 1989, earning an average annual
income of P150,000.00.[39] When he testified, however, he said that he
has been a businessman since he graduated from college in 1978.[40] Moreover, Ong did not specify or describe the
nature of his business. [41]
As proof of his income, Ong presented four tax returns for the years
1994 to 1997.[42] Based on these returns, Ongs gross annual
income was P60,000.00 for 1994; P118,000.00 for 1995; P118,000.00
for 1996; and P128,000.00 for 1997.
Respondent further testified that he
socializes[43]
with Filipinos; celebrates the Sinulog, fiestas, birthdays, and Christmas.[44] He is a member of the Alert/ React VII
Communications Group and the Masonic organization.[45]
Respondent Ong presented a health
certificate to prove[46] that he
is of sound physical and mental health.[47] As shown by the clearances from the National
Bureau of Investigation,[48] the
Philippine National Police,[49] the
trial courts,[50]
and the barangay,[51] he has
no criminal record or pending criminal charges.[52]
Respondent presented Rudy Carvajal
(Carvajal) and Bernard Sepulveda (Sepulveda) as his character witnesses. At that time, Sepulveda was the vice-mayor of
Borbon,
On November 23, 2001, the trial court granted Ongs petition. Among other things, the trial court held
that:
x x x x
By the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by
the [respondent], the following facts had been established.[59]
x x x x
x x x [Respondent] is a businessman/business manager
engaged in lawful trade and business since 1989 from which he derives an average
annual income of more than One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Exhibit U, V, W,
and X with sub-markings); x x x[60]
The dispositive
portion of the trial courts Decision reads:
From
the evidence presented by [respondent], this Court believes and so holds that
[respondent] possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided for by law to become a citizen of the
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, [respondent] KERRY LAO ONG is hereby admitted as citizen of the Republic of the
SO
ORDERED.[61]
Republics Appeal
On January 31, 2003, the Republic,
through the Solicitor General, appealed
to the CA. The Republic faulted the trial court for
granting Ongs petition despite his failure to prove that he possesses a known
lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation as required under Section 2,
fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law.[62]
The Republic posited that, contrary
to the trial courts finding, respondent Ong did not prove his allegation that
he is a businessman/business manager earning an average income of P150,000.00
since 1989. His income tax returns belie
the value of his income. Moreover, he
failed to present evidence on the nature of his profession or trade, which is
the source of his income. Considering
that he has four minor children (all attending exclusive private schools), he
has declared no other property and/or bank deposits, and he has not declared
owning a family home, his alleged income cannot be considered lucrative. Under
the circumstances, the Republic maintained that respondent Ong is not qualified
as he does not possess a definite and existing business or trade.[63]
Respondent Ong conceded that the
Supreme Court has adopted a higher standard of income for applicants for
naturalization.[64] He likewise conceded that the legal
definition of lucrative income is the existence of an appreciable margin of his
income over his expenses.[65] It is his position that his income, together
with that of his wife, created an appreciable margin over their expenses.[66] Moreover, the steady increase in his income,
as evidenced in his tax returns, proved that he is gainfully employed.[67]
The appellate court dismissed the
Republics appeal. It explained:
In the case at bar, the [respondent] chose to present [pieces
of evidence] which relates [sic] to his lucrative trade, profession or lawful
occupation. Judging from the present
standard of living and the personal circumstances of the [respondent] using the
present time as the index for the income stated by the [respondent], it may
appear that the [respondent] has no lucrative employment. However, We must be mindful that the petition
for naturalization was filed in 1996, which is already ten years ago. It is of judicial notice that the value of
the peso has taken a considerable plunge in value since that time up to the
present. Nonetheless, if We consider the
income earned at that time, the ages of the children of the [respondent], the
employment of his wife, We can say that there is an appreciable margin of his
income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support.[68]
The appellate court denied the
Republics motion for reconsideration[69] in its
Resolution dated November 7, 2006.[70]
Issue
Whether respondent Ong has proved that he has some known
lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation in accordance with Section 2,
fourth paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law.
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioner assigns as error the
appellate courts ruling that there is an appreciable margin of (respondents)
income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support.[71] The Republic contends that the CAs
conclusion is not supported by the evidence on record and by the prevailing
law.[72]
The only pieces of evidence
presented by Ong to prove that he qualifies under Section 2, fourth paragraph
of the Revised Naturalization Law, are his tax returns for the years 1994 to
1997, which show that Ong earns from P60,000.00 to P128,000.00
annually. This declared income is far
from the legal requirement of lucrative income.
It is not sufficient to provide for the needs of a family of six, with
four children of school age.[73]
Moreover, none of these tax returns describes the source of Ongs
income, much less can they describe the lawful nature thereof.[74] The Republic also noted that Ong did not even
attempt to describe what business he is engaged in. Thus, the trial and appellate courts shared
conclusion that Ong is a businessman is grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures.[75]
The Republic thus prays for the
reversal of the appellate courts Decision and the denial of Ongs petition for
naturalization.[76]
Respondents
Arguments
Respondent asks for the denial of
the petition as it seeks a review of factual findings, which review is improper
in a Rule 45 petition.[77] He further submits that his tax returns
support the conclusion that he is engaged in lucrative trade.[78]
Our Ruling
The courts must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings are
imbued with the highest public interest.[79] Naturalization laws should be rigidly
enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the
applicant.[80]
The burden of proof rests upon
the applicant to show
full
and
complete
compliance with the requirements of law.[81]
In the case at bar, the controversy
revolves around respondent Ongs 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
x x x x
Fourth.
He must own real estate in the
x x x x[82]
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 ones becoming the object of charity or a
public charge.[83] 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.[84]
Moreover, it has been held that in determining the existence of a lucrative
income, the
courts should consider only the applicants income; his or her spouses income
should not be included in the assessment.
The spouses additional income is immaterial for under the law the
petitioner should be the one to possess some known lucrative trade, profession
or lawful occupation to qualify him to become a Filipino citizen.[85] Lastly, the Court has consistently held that
the applicants qualifications must be determined as of the time of the filing
of his petition.[86]
Going over the decisions of the
courts below, the Court finds that the foregoing guidelines have not been
observed. To recall, respondent Ong and
his witnesses testified that Ong is a businessman but none of them identified
Ongs business or described its nature.
The Court finds it suspect that Ong did not even testify as to the
nature of his business, whereas his witness Carvajal did with respect to his
own (leasing of office space). A
comparison of their respective testimonies is reproduced below:
Carvajals
testimony
Q: You said
earlier that you are a businessman?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: How long have
you been a businessman?
A: Since 1980.
Q: And what is the
business you are engaged in?
A: I am into
leasing of office spaces.[87]
Kerry Lao Ongs
testimony
Q: What is your present occupation, Mr. Ong?
A: Businessman.
Q: Since when have
you engaged in that occupation?
A: After
graduation from college.[88]
The dearth of documentary evidence
compounds the inadequacy of the testimonial evidence. The applicant provided no documentary evidence,
like business permits, registration, official receipts, or other business
records to demonstrate his proprietorship or participation in a business. Instead, Ong relied on his general assertions
to prove his possession of some known lucrative
trade, profession or lawful occupation.
Bare, general assertions cannot discharge the burden of proof that is
required of an applicant for naturalization.
The paucity of evidence is
unmistakable upon a reading of the trial courts decision. The trial court held that respondent Ong is
a businessman engaged in lawful trade and business since 1989[89] 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
courts conclusion that Ong has been a businessman since 1989 is only an
assertion found in Ongs petition for naturalization.[90] 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.[91]
Further, the trial court, citing Exhibits U, V, W, and X (which are
Ongs tax returns), mistakenly found that Ong derives an average annual income
of more than One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos.[92] This conclusion is not supported by the
evidence. The cited tax returns show
that Ongs 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 Ongs
petition,[93]
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 Ongs
income, as evidenced by his tax returns, can be considered lucrative in
1996. In determining this issue, the CA
considered the ages of Ongs children, the income that he earned in 1996, and
the fact that Ongs wife was also employed at that time. It then concluded that there is an
appreciable margin of Ongs income over his expenses.[94]
The Court finds the appellate
courts decision erroneous. First, it should not have included the
spouses income in its assessment of Ongs lucrative income.[95] Second, it failed to consider the
following circumstances which have a bearing on Ongs expenses vis--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 Ongs children were all
studying in exclusive private schools in Cebu City. Third, the CA did not explain how it arrived at the conclusion that
Ongs income had an appreciable margin over his known expenses.
Ongs gross income might have been sufficient to meet his familys 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 familys 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.[96]
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.[97]
The Court finds no merit in
respondents submission that a Rule 45 petition precludes a review of the
factual findings of the courts below.[98] In the first place, the trial court and
appellate courts decisions contain conclusions that are bereft of evidentiary support or factual basis, which is a known
exception[99]
to the general rule that only questions of law may be entertained in a Rule 45
petition.
Moreover, a review of the decisions involving petitions for
naturalization shows that the Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual
existence of the applicants qualifications.
In fact, jurisprudence holds that the entire records of the
naturalization case are open for consideration in an appeal to this Court.[100] Indeed, [a] naturalization proceeding is so
infused with public interest that it has been differently categorized and given
special treatment. x x x [U]nlike in
ordinary judicial contest, the granting of a petition for naturalization does
not preclude the reopening of that case and giving the government another
opportunity to present new evidence. A
decision or order granting citizenship will not even constitute res judicata to any matter or reason
supporting a subsequent judgment cancelling the certification of naturalization
already granted, on the ground that it had been illegally or fraudulently
procured. For the same reason, issues
even if not raised in the lower court may be entertained on appeal. As the
matters brought to the attention of this Court x x x involve facts contained in
the disputed decision of the lower court and admitted by the parties in their
pleadings, the present proceeding may be considered adequate for the purpose of
determining the correctness or incorrectness of said decision, in the light of
the law and extant jurisprudence.[101] In the case at bar, there is even no need to
present new evidence. A careful review
of the extant records suffices to hold that respondent Ong has not proven his
possession of a known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation to
qualify for naturalization.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition of the Republic of the
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
Acting
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended)
* Per Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30,
2012.
** Per
Special Order No. 1227 dated May 30, 2012.
[1] Republic v. Hong, 520 Phil. 276, 285
(2006); Ong Chia v. Republic, 385
Phil. 487, 498 (2000).
[2] Republic v. Hong, 520 Phil. 276, 285
(2006); Tiu v. Republic, 158 Phil.
1137, 1138 (1974); Que Tiac v. Republic, 150 Phil. 68, 86 (1972).
[3] Rollo, pp. 28-34.
[4] CA
Decision, p. 7; id. at 33; penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas and
concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Apolinario D.
Bruselas, Jr.
[5] SECTION
2. Qualifications. Subject to section four of this Act,
any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the
First. He must be not less than
twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition;
x
x x x (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended)
[6] Records,
pp. 1-9.
[7] Entitled An Act to Provide for the Acquisition
of Philippine Citizenship by Naturalization, and to Repeal Acts Numbered
Twenty-Nine Hundred and Twenty-Seven and Thirty-Four Hundred and Forty-Eight,
as amended.
[8] Records, p. 18-A (Exhibit H), pp. 65-68,
262-264, 461-464.
[9]
[10]
[11] Section
9. Notification
and Appearance. Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be
the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioners expense,
once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of
the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner
resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the
hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the
building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name,
birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival
in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to
introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the
petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of
the last publication of the notice. x x x (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended)
[12] Records, pp. 25-26.
[13] Section
10. Hearing
of the Petition. x x x The hearing shall be public, and the
Solicitor-General, either himself or through his delegate or the provincial fiscal
concerned, shall appear on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Philippines at all
the proceedings and at the hearing. x x x (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended).
[14] Respondents
Certificate of Live Birth (Records, p. 530).
[15] Records,
p. 531 (Exhibit N).
[16]
[17] Section
2. Qualifications.
x x x
x
x x x
Second.
He must have resided in the
x
x x x (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended)
[18] Kerry Lao Ongs direct examination, TSN
dated November 26, 1998, pp. 5-6.
[19] Section
2. Qualifications. x x x
x
x x x
Fifth.
He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any of the
principal Philippine languages;
x
x x x (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended)
[20] Kerry
Lao Ongs direct examination, TSN dated November 26, 1998, p. 12.
[21] Records,
p. 526 (Exhibit J).
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] Section
7. Petition
for Citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship
shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by
two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth x x x whether single or married
and if the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the
wife and of each of the children; x x x
(Commonwealth Act No. 473,
as amended)
[26] Records,
p. 536-A (Exhibit Q).
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] Section
2. Qualifications. x x x
x
x x x
Sixth.
He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of
the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private
Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics
are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire
period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing
of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended)
[31] Records, p. 559 (Exhibit FF).
[32]
[33] Section
7. Petition
for Citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship
shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by
two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth x x x his present and former
places of residence x x x (Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended)
[34] Kerry
Lao Ongs direct examination, TSN dated November 26, 1998, p. 5.
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] Records,
p. 3.
[40]
[41] Kerry
Lao Ongs direct testimony, TSN dated November 26, 1998, p. 11.
[42] Records,
pp. 539-545 (Exhibits U-X).
[43] Section
4. Who
are disqualified. The following can
not be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
x
x x x
(f) Persons who, during the period of their
residence in the
x
x x x (Commonwealth Act No. 473,
as amended)
[44] Kerry
Lao Ongs direct examination, TSN dated November 26, 1998, p. 15.
[45]
[46] Records,
p. 556 (Exhibit CC).
[47] Section
4. Who
are disqualified. The following can
not be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
x
x x x
(e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious diseases;
x
x x x (Commonwealth Act No. 473,
as amended)
[48] Records, p. 548 (Exhibit Y).
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52] Section
4. Who
are disqualified. The following can
not be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
x
x x x
(d) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude;
x
x x x (Commonwealth Act No. 473,
as amended)
[53] Bernard
Sepulvedas direct examination, TSN dated February 11, 1999, p. 7.
[54]
[55]
[56] Rudy Carvajals direct examination, TSN
dated February 11, 1999, p. 3.
[57]
[58]
[59] RTC
Decision, p. 2; rollo, p. 52; penned
by Judge Benigno G. Gaviola.
[60]
[61]
[62] SECTION
2.
Qualifications. Subject to
section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may
become a citizen of the
x x x x
Fourth. He must own real estate in the
x
x x x (Commonwealth Act No. 473,
as amended; emphasis supplied.)
[63] Appellants
Brief, pp. 11-13; CA rollo, pp.
24-26.
[64] Appellees
Brief, p. 5; id. at 52.
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68] CA
Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 33.
[69] CA rollo,
pp. 74-82.
[70] Rollo, p. 35; penned by Associate
Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred in by Associate Justices Agustin S.
Dizon and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.
[71] CA
Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 33.
[72] Petitioners
Memorandum, p. 11; id. at 146.
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77] Respondents Memorandum, pp. 9-12; id. at
127-130.
[78]
[79] Republic v. Hong, supra note 1.
[80] Ong Chia v. Republic, supra note 1; Republic v. Hong, supra note 1.
[81] Republic v. Hong, supra note 1; Que Tiac v. Republic, supra note 2; Tiu v. Republic, supra note 2.
[82] Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
[83] In the Matter of the Petition of Ban Uan, 154
Phil. 552, 554 (1974); In the Matter of
the Petition of Tiong v. Republic, 157 Phil. 107, 108-109 (1974); Tan v. Republic, 121 Phil. 643, 647
(1965) (Emphasis supplied.).
[84] Chua Kian Lai v. Republic, 158 Phil. 44,
48 (1974); In the Matter of the Petition
of Tiong v. Republic, supra at 109;
In the Matter of the Petition of Ban Uan,
supra at 555; Chiao v. Republic, 154
Phil. 8, 13 (1974); Watt v. Republic, 150-B
Phil. 610, 632 (1972) (Emphasis supplied.)
[85] Li Tong Pek v. Republic, 122 Phil. 828,
832 (1965). See also Uy v. Republic,
120 Phil. 973, 976 (1964).
[86] Chiu Bok v. Republic, 245 Phil. 144, 146
(1988); Teh San v. Republic, 132
Phil. 221, 222 (1968); Lim Uy v.
Republic, 121 Phil. 1181, 1190 (1965); Ong
Tai v. Republic, 120 Phil. 1345, 1348-1349 (1964).
[87] Rudy
Carvajals direct testimony, TSN dated February 11, 1999, p. 4.
[88] Kerry
Lao Ongs direct testimony, TSN dated November 26, 1998, p. 11.
[89] RTC
Decision, p. 3; rollo, p. 53.
[90] Records,
p. 3.
[91] Kerry
Lao Ongs direct testimony, TSN dated November 26, 1998, p. 11.
[92] Records,
p. 3; rollo, p. 53.
[93]
[94] CA
Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 33.
[95] Li Tong Pek v. Republic, supra note 85.
See also Uy v. Republic, supra note
85.
[96] In the Matter of the Petition of Tiong v.
Republic, supra note 83; In the
Matter of the Petition of Ban Uan, supra note 83; Tan v. Republic, supra note 83 (Emphasis supplied.)
[97] Chiu Bok v. Republic, supra note 86 at 146-147
(1988); Chua Kian Lai v. Republic, supra
note 84 at 48-49 (1974); In the Matter of
the Petition of Tiong v. Republic, supra note 83 at 109; Ong v. Republic, 156 Phil. 690, 692
(1974); In the Matter of the Petition of
Ban Uan, supra note 83 at 554-555; Que
Tiac v. Republic, supra note 2 at 100; Uy
v. Republic, 147 Phil. 230, 233-234 (1971);
Li Tong Pek v. Republic, supra note
85 at 831-832; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, 121
Phil. 402, 406-407 (1965); Keng Giok v.
Republic, 112 Phil. 986, 991-992 (1961).
[98] Respondents Memorandum, pp. 9-12; rollo, pp. 127-130.
[99] As a
rule, findings of fact of the CA are binding and conclusive upon this Court,
and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal unless the case falls under any
of the following recognized exceptions: (1) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse of
discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (4) when the
judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings
of facts are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond
the issues of the case, and those findings are contrary to the admissions of
both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the CA are contrary to
those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when
the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties
and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and,
(10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. (Bank
of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008, 544
SCRA 206, 215). Emphasis supplied.
[100] Go Im Ty v. Republic, 124 Phil. 187, 196
(1966); Tio Tek Chai v. Republic, 120
Phil. 1010, 1013 (1964).
[101] Republic v. Reyes, 122 Phil. 931, 934
(1965).