ONG CHIA v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS

(328 SCRA 749)
March 27, 2000

Facts:
Ong Chia was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China. He arrived in Manila when he
was 9 years old, since then, he has stayed in the Philippines where he found his employment and
eventually started his own business, married a Filipino with whom he had 4 children.

On July 1989, at the age of 66, he filed a verified petition to be admitted as a Filipino
citizen under CA 473 a.k.a. the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. Ong Chia, after stating
his qualification and the lack of disqualifications, stated that his petition for citizenship was not
acted upon by the Special Committee on Naturalization, OSG, since the same was not
reconstituted after the February 1986 revolution.

During the hearings, Ong Chia along with 3 witnesses testified as to his qualification.
Since the Prosecutor was impressed and decided not to counteract the testimonies, the trial court
granted the petition and admitted Ong Chia to Philippine citizenship.

However, the State, through the OSG, appealed (with annexed documents) contending
that Ong Chia: (1) failed to state all the names by which he is or had been known i.e. Loreto Chia
Ong; (2) failed to state all his former places of residence in violation of CA 473 i.e. J.M. Basa
Street, Iloilo; (3) failed to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his
entire stay in the Philippines i.e. he cohabited with his wife 8 years prior to their marriage
(annexed is the marriage contract in 1977 and Joint Affidavit of Ong Chia and his wife); (4) has
no known lucrative trade or occupation and his previous incomes has been insufficient or
misdeclared as per the annexed income tax returns; and (5) failed to support his petition with the
appropriate documentary evidence i.e. marriage contract for the alleged first marriage before a
judge in 1953.

Issue: WON the Revised Rules on Evidence applies in the case

Held: No.

According to Rule 143 of the Rules of Court: “These rules shall not apply to land
registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other
cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient.” (Emphasis added)

Prescinding from the above, the rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34) now
being invoked by Ong Chia is clearly not applicable to the present case involving a petition for
naturalization. The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in
such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient."

JJMO