February 1965 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > February 1965 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-19846 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: JUAN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-19846. February 26, 1965.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JUAN YAP TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, JUAN YAP, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Teodorico M. Durias for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; LUCRATIVE TRADE NOT PROVEN BY MONTHLY INCOME OF P150 WITH WIFE AND THREE CHILDREN TO SUPPORT. — Where petitioner’s only income is P150 a month, such income is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that he has a lucrative trade, particularly considering that he has to support a wife and three children.
2. ID.; ID.; CHARACTER WITNESSES’ GENERAL REPUTATION FOR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY PROVEN. — The mere fact that petitioner’s character witnesses were government employees is not enough. Petitioner has to comply with his duty to prove affirmatively that these witnesses enjoy such a general reputation for honesty and integrity as to qualify them to vouch for him as one suitable for naturalization.
2. ID.; ID.; CHARACTER WITNESSES’ GENERAL REPUTATION FOR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY PROVEN. — The mere fact that petitioner’s character witnesses were government employees is not enough. Petitioner has to comply with his duty to prove affirmatively that these witnesses enjoy such a general reputation for honesty and integrity as to qualify them to vouch for him as one suitable for naturalization.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
The Solicitor General seeks the review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental granting the petition for naturalization of appellee Juan Yap. Appellant maintains that petitioner does not have a lucrative trade or occupation, and that his witnesses are not credible persons.
Indeed, it is admitted that petitioner owns no real estate whatsoever. Moreover, his only income is P150.00 a month, as a weigher in the Western Products, Co., Inc. As we ruled in Ong v. Republic (G.R. No. L-15754, May 19, 1961), such income is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that he has a lucrative trade, particularly considering that he has to support a wife and three children (Jew Chong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14343, May 23, 1961; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961; Sy Cesar v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14009, May 31, 1961; Ong Tai v. Republic, G.R. No L-19418, December 23, 1964).
Again, petitioner’s character witnesses were Benedicto Labastida and Severo E. Banci. The former is an administrative deputy in the office of the city treasurer of Ozamis City, whereas the latter had been its municipal treasurer from 1923 to 1930. The records do not show that petitioner has complied with his duty to prove affirmatively that these witnesses enjoy such a general reputation for honesty and integrity as to qualify them, to the extent required by the Naturalization Law, to vouchsafe for herein applicant appellee as one suitable for naturalization (Te Tay Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15956, March 30, 1963; Sehwani v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18219, December 27, 1963; Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
Indeed, it is admitted that petitioner owns no real estate whatsoever. Moreover, his only income is P150.00 a month, as a weigher in the Western Products, Co., Inc. As we ruled in Ong v. Republic (G.R. No. L-15754, May 19, 1961), such income is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that he has a lucrative trade, particularly considering that he has to support a wife and three children (Jew Chong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14343, May 23, 1961; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961; Sy Cesar v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14009, May 31, 1961; Ong Tai v. Republic, G.R. No L-19418, December 23, 1964).
Again, petitioner’s character witnesses were Benedicto Labastida and Severo E. Banci. The former is an administrative deputy in the office of the city treasurer of Ozamis City, whereas the latter had been its municipal treasurer from 1923 to 1930. The records do not show that petitioner has complied with his duty to prove affirmatively that these witnesses enjoy such a general reputation for honesty and integrity as to qualify them, to the extent required by the Naturalization Law, to vouchsafe for herein applicant appellee as one suitable for naturalization (Te Tay Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15956, March 30, 1963; Sehwani v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18219, December 27, 1963; Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
