98. REPUBLIC v.

KARBASI | 1

Third Division
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. KAMRAN F. KARBASI
[G.R. No. 210412. July 29, 2015.]
Mendoza, J p.

TOPIC: CITIZENSHIP: Who are qualified?

Naturalization Proceedings:
LUCRATIVE INCOME / RECIPROCITY EXCEPTION

DOCTRINE:
 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. His income should permit
him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort.

FACTS:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. KAMRAN F. KARBASI, respondent.
 On June 25, 2002, Kamran F. Kabarsi filed a petition for naturalization with the RTC

 After finding that the petition is sufficient in form, the petitioner submitted his witnesses,
and thereafter, took the witness stand himself. He narrated that he is an Iranian national.
He and his brother left Iran in 1986 because of the war between Iran and Iraq at that time.
Their government confiscated their passport so they travelled by camel to Pakistan where
they stayed for 3 years, but was not granted a refugee status there. They decided to come
to the Philippines since one of his brothers was already studying in the country. They
procured Pakistani passports under assumed names.

 Upon his arrival in the Philippines on July, 1990, he submitted himself to the United
Nations in Manila. After several interviews, he was admitted as a refugee and, later on,
as a person of concern. As a refugee, he was granted by the United Nations allowances,
medical benefits and protection to some extent.

 On January 17, 2007, the RTC found Karbasi's evidence sufficient to support his petition.
Finding Karbasi as possessing all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to
become a Filipino citizen, the RTC rendered its decision granting the petition for
naturalization.

 Not in conformity, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), interposed an appeal to the CA, based mainly on the ground that the
RTC erred in granting Karbasi's petition as he failed to comply with the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Naturalization Law) on character, income and reciprocity.

 Specifically, the OSG pointed out that Karbasi failed to establish that:
1) Iran grants reciprocal rights of naturalization to Filipino citizens;
 98. REPUBLIC v. KARBASI | 2
2) He has a lucrative income as required under the law; and
3) He is of good moral character as shown by his disregard of Philippine tax laws when
he had under declared his income in his income tax returns (ITRs) and overstated the
same in his petition for naturalization.

 The CA ruled that the alleged under declaration in Karbasi's ITRs was prepared in good
faith because he was of the belief that he no longer needed to include the income he
received as payment of his services to Daewoo Electronics Services, Inc. (Daewoo) and
Kolins Philippines International, Inc. (Kolins), because the same were already withheld at
source.

 The CA likewise affirmed the RTC finding that Karbasi, as a refugee, need not prove
reciprocity between Philippine and Iranian laws.

ISSUE:
1) Whether reciprocity is necessary in the naturalization of refugees.
2) Whether Kabasi complies with the “lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation”
provision required in CA No. 473 otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law.

RULING:
1) NO, reciprocity is not necessary in the naturalization of refugees.

Although it is true that the Naturalization Law disqualifies citizens or subjects of a

foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or
subjects. A perusal of Karbasi's petition, both with the RTC and the CA, together with his
supplemental pleadings filed with the Court, however, reveals that he has successfully
established his refugee status upon arrival in the Philippines. In effect, the country's
obligations under its various international commitments come into operation. Articles 6 and
34 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the Philippines is a
signatory, must be considered in this case, to wit:
Article 6 of the 1951 Convention: For the purposes of this Convention, the term "in
the same circumstances" implies that any requirements (including requirements as to length
and conditions of sojourn or residence) which the particular individual would have to fulfill for
the enjoyment of the right in question, if he were not a refugee, must be fulfilled by him, with
the exception of requirements which by their nature a refugee is incapable of fulfilling.

Article 32 of the 1951 Convention: “The Contracting States shall as far as possible
facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every
effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and
costs of such proceedings.”

In the same vein, Article 7 of the said Convention expressly provides exemptions from
reciprocity, while Article 32 states the earnest obligation of contracting parties to "as far as
possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees." As applied to this case,
Karbasi's status as a refugee has to end with the attainment of Filipino citizenship, in
consonance with Philippine statutory requirements and international obligations. Indeed, the
Naturalization Law must be read in light of the developments in international human rights
law specifically the granting of nationality to refugees and stateless persons.
 98. REPUBLIC v. KARBASI | 3

2) YES, Kabasi complied with the “lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation”
provision required in CA No. 473 otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law.

There was neither a showing that Karbasi was dependent on another person for support
nor proof that his family’s extraordinary expenses that would render his income as
inadequate. As in any other business venture, the risk of losses is a possibility for his repair
shop but, still, this risk was not clearly established to render his livelihood as unstable and
volatile. In fact, the OSG does not belie the fact that Karbasi has been engaged by reputable
companies for his services. Conversely, the findings of the RTC would indicate that Karbasi
had indeed exhibited industry and hard work in putting up his repair shop business and that
his wife considered him as a good provider, not to mention a vocational and college degree
holder. Admittedly, testimonies in favor of an applicant for naturalization are expected to be
self-serving. Nevertheless, the Court finds it difficult to agree with the OSG's meager use of
government data to prove that Karbasi would become a burden to the Philippine society in
the future. Except for its own citation of government data, nothing else was presented to
establish that Karbasi had indeed no lucrative income or trade to support himself and his
family.

In Uy v. Republic, where the Court laid down the public policy underlying the lucrative
income requirement as follows: “The Court must be satisfied that there is reasonable
assurance not only that the applicant will not be a social burden or liability but that he is a
potential asset to the country he seeks to adopt for himself and quite literally, for his children
and his children's children.”

In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Chua, the Court ruled that “The economic
qualification for naturalization may be seen to embody the objective of ensuring that the
petitioner would not become a public charge or an economic burden upon society. The
requirement relates, in other words, not simply to the time of execution of the petition for
naturalization but also to the probable future of the applicant for naturalization”.

As in Chua's case, it does not at all seem likely that Karbasi, in his current circumstances,
will ever become a public charge. It bears emphasis to note that from a refugee who had
nothing when he came to the Philippines, Karbasi had indeed refused to be the object of
charity by working hard to graduate from college and to eventually engage in business to give
his family support and comfort. The CA could not have explained this in better terms —

“Thus, Karbasi went from being a refugee — who was dependent on the UNCHR for
support — to a self-made entrepreneur who can ably support himself and his family. As such,
there is no showing that Karbasi may turn out to be a public charge and a burden to our
country's resources. The fact moreover that he overcame this adversity through his education
and skills shows that he is a potential asset of the country.”

CONCLUSION:
The petition is DENIED.