8/18/2019 ong vhia v. ca

1/2

G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000

ONG CHIA, petitioner,

vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES an THE COURT OFAPPEALS, respondents.

Fac!": Petitioner was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China and arrived inthe Philippines in 1932. He has stayed in the Philippines sine then and wasmarried to a !ilipina, with whom he had "our hildren. #n July $, 19%9, at thea&e o" '', he (led a veri(ed petition to be admitted as a !ilipino iti)enunder C.A. *o. $+3, otherwise nown as the -evised *aturali)ation aw, as

amended. /urin& the hearin&s, petitioner testi(ed as to his 0uali(ations andpresented three witnesses to orroborate his testimony. he proseutor wasso impressed that he no lon&er presented any witness to oppose. he trialourt then &ranted #n& Chia !ilipino iti)enship.

 he oliitor eneral appealed and stated that the petitioner, "ailed tostate all his "ormer plae o" residene, he "ailed to ondut himsel" in aproper and irreproahable manner durin& his entire stay in the Philippines,that he has no nown lurative trade or oupation and his previous inomeshave been insu4ient or misdelared, and that he "ailed to support hispetition with the appropriate doumentary evidene. he Court o" Appealsthen reversed the deision o" the trial ourt.

I""#$: 5hether or not the appellate ourt erred in onsiderin& thedouments whih had merely been anne6ed by the tate to its appellant7sbrie" and made it the basis to 8usti"y the reversal o" the deision o" the trialourt.

R#%&n': he Court o" Appeals did not ommit irreversible error. he

petitioners ar&ument that evidene not "ormally oered are mere sraps o"

paper aordin& to -ule 132, etion 3$ o" the -evised -ules on ;videne is

devoid o" merit. Petitioner "ailed to note -ule 1$3 o" the -ules o" Court whih

provides that <

 hese rules shall not  apply to land re&istration, adastral and eletionases, naturalization and insolveny proeedin&s, and other ases not hereinprovided "or, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever

 practicable and convenient . =;mphasis added>.

8/18/2019 ong vhia v. ca

2/2

Presindin& "rom the above, the rule on "ormal oer o" evidene =-ule 132,

setion 3$> now bein& invoed by petitioner is learly not appliable to the

present ase involvin& a petition "or naturali)ation. he only instane when

said rules may be applied by analo&y or suppletorily in suh ases is when it

is ?pratiable and onvenient.? hat is not the ase here, sine reliane

upon the douments presented by the tate "or the (rst time on appeal, in

"at, appears to be the more pratial and onvenient ourse o" ation

onsiderin& that deisions in naturali)ation proeedin&s are not overed by

the rule on res judicata. Conse0uently, a (nal "avorable 8ud&ment does not

prelude the tate "rom later on movin& "or a revoation o" the &rant o"

naturali)ation on the basis o" the same douments.

!urthermore, the Court notes that these douments < namely, the petition in

C* Case *o. @31+'+, petitioner7s marria&e ontrat, the 8oint a4davit

e6euted by him and his wi"e, and petitioner7s inome ta6 returns < are allpubli douments. As suh, they have been e6euted under oath. hey are

thus reliable. ine petitioner "ailed to mae a satis"atory showin& o" any

aw or irre&ularity that may ast doubt on the authentiity o" these

douments, it is our onlusion that the appellate ourt did not err in relyin&

upon them.

5H;-;!#-;, the deision o" the Court o" Appeals is A!!B-;/ and the

instant petition is hereby /;*B;/.