November 1962 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > November 1962 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-17748 November 28, 1962 - IN RE: MANUEL YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17748. November 28, 1962.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. MANUEL YU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
J. Gonzales Chung, Jr. for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; INCOME OR TRADE REQUIREMENT; PROOF REQUIRED WHERE APPLICANT CLAIMS TO BE EMPLOYED BY HIS PARENTS. — Where the applicant for naturalization claims to be employed by either of his parents, he must submit very satisfactory proof that he is actually employed and worth the salary he is receiving, in order to eliminate any suspicion that his parents have employed him only as a convenient arrangement to satisfy the statutory requirements for naturalization.
2. ID.; ID.; MONTHLY SALARY OF P120.00 NOT SUFFICIENT INCOME. — Granting that the applicant for naturalization earns P120.00 monthly, he cannot be said to have a lucrative trade or occupation, because such amount is not sufficient (Lo Chicombing v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14865, March 27, 1961; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12400, March 29, 1961; Tan v. Republic 112 Phil., 131) in view of the present high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso (Sy Piñero v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17399, October 30, 1962).
2. ID.; ID.; MONTHLY SALARY OF P120.00 NOT SUFFICIENT INCOME. — Granting that the applicant for naturalization earns P120.00 monthly, he cannot be said to have a lucrative trade or occupation, because such amount is not sufficient (Lo Chicombing v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14865, March 27, 1961; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12400, March 29, 1961; Tan v. Republic 112 Phil., 131) in view of the present high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso (Sy Piñero v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17399, October 30, 1962).
D E C I S I O N
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Manuel Yu appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying his petition for naturalization on the ground that he does not have a lucrative lawful occupation.
The following appears from appellant’s evidence: He was born of Chinese parents in Manila on March 22, 1934 and is at present residing with his mother, a widow, at 1319 Soler Street. Still single at the time of the trial, he has continuously resided in the Philippines, never leaving the country except for a short vacation in China while still a child. He is registered with the Embassy of the Republic of China as a citizen thereof (Exhibit H); and has the corresponding certificate of registration (Exhibit K) and immigrant certificate of residence (Exhibit J) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.
Appellant speaks and writes Tagalog and English (Exhibit M). He finished his elementary education at the Chinese Republican School, Magdalena St., Manila; his high school education at the Quezon College, Manila; and a semester of commerce at the Mapua Institute of Technology (Exhibit N-1).
The evidence likewise shows that appellant believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their customs, traditions, and ideals; that he is not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments, nor does he defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of men’s ideas; that he is not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy; that he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, and has not been charged with the commission of any offense (Exhibits O, O-1 to O-9 and O-11); and that he is not suffering from mental alienation or any incurable contagious disease (Exhibit P). The nation of which he is a subject grants by law to Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens thereof, and is not at war with the Philippines.
From appellant’s evidence it seems that except for the lack of lucrative employment, he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen.
It is alleged that appellant is earning P1,440.00 annually as sales representative of the Victory Steel Chair Factory, 1319 Soler St., Manila, which is owned by his mother, Ong Kim. As evidence of this allegation appellant relies on his own testimony as well as on his mother’s sworn written statement to that effect, which, however, was not testified to by her when she took the witness stand to verify the date and place of his birth. Where the applicant for naturalization claims to be employed by either of his parents he must submit more satisfactory proof than has been adduced herein that he is actually employed and worth the salary he is receiving, in order to eliminate any suspicion that his parents have employed him only as a convenient arrangement to satisfy the statutory requisites for naturalization.
But granting that appellant earns P120.00 monthly, he cannot be said to have a lucrative trade or occupation. Such amount is not sufficient (Lo Chicombing v. Republic, L-14865, March 27, 1961; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, L-14860, May 30, 1961) in view of the present high cost of living and the low purchasing power of our currency (Sy Piñero v. Republic, L-17399, October 30, 1962). Invoking the case of Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-4588, January 28, 1953, appellant asserts that the free board and lodging, worth P60.00 monthly, furnished by his mother-employer, should be added to his monthly salary in cash in order to arrive at his correct earnings. Even then, monthly income of P180.00 will not qualify him, since even the amount of P250.00 has been considered not lucrative for purposes of naturalization (Ong v. Republic, L-15764, May 19, 1961).
The decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against Appellant.
Bengzon, C.J. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
The following appears from appellant’s evidence: He was born of Chinese parents in Manila on March 22, 1934 and is at present residing with his mother, a widow, at 1319 Soler Street. Still single at the time of the trial, he has continuously resided in the Philippines, never leaving the country except for a short vacation in China while still a child. He is registered with the Embassy of the Republic of China as a citizen thereof (Exhibit H); and has the corresponding certificate of registration (Exhibit K) and immigrant certificate of residence (Exhibit J) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.
Appellant speaks and writes Tagalog and English (Exhibit M). He finished his elementary education at the Chinese Republican School, Magdalena St., Manila; his high school education at the Quezon College, Manila; and a semester of commerce at the Mapua Institute of Technology (Exhibit N-1).
The evidence likewise shows that appellant believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; that he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their customs, traditions, and ideals; that he is not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments, nor does he defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of men’s ideas; that he is not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy; that he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, and has not been charged with the commission of any offense (Exhibits O, O-1 to O-9 and O-11); and that he is not suffering from mental alienation or any incurable contagious disease (Exhibit P). The nation of which he is a subject grants by law to Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens thereof, and is not at war with the Philippines.
From appellant’s evidence it seems that except for the lack of lucrative employment, he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen.
It is alleged that appellant is earning P1,440.00 annually as sales representative of the Victory Steel Chair Factory, 1319 Soler St., Manila, which is owned by his mother, Ong Kim. As evidence of this allegation appellant relies on his own testimony as well as on his mother’s sworn written statement to that effect, which, however, was not testified to by her when she took the witness stand to verify the date and place of his birth. Where the applicant for naturalization claims to be employed by either of his parents he must submit more satisfactory proof than has been adduced herein that he is actually employed and worth the salary he is receiving, in order to eliminate any suspicion that his parents have employed him only as a convenient arrangement to satisfy the statutory requisites for naturalization.
But granting that appellant earns P120.00 monthly, he cannot be said to have a lucrative trade or occupation. Such amount is not sufficient (Lo Chicombing v. Republic, L-14865, March 27, 1961; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, L-14860, May 30, 1961) in view of the present high cost of living and the low purchasing power of our currency (Sy Piñero v. Republic, L-17399, October 30, 1962). Invoking the case of Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-4588, January 28, 1953, appellant asserts that the free board and lodging, worth P60.00 monthly, furnished by his mother-employer, should be added to his monthly salary in cash in order to arrive at his correct earnings. Even then, monthly income of P180.00 will not qualify him, since even the amount of P250.00 has been considered not lucrative for purposes of naturalization (Ong v. Republic, L-15764, May 19, 1961).
The decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against Appellant.
Bengzon, C.J. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
