Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > May 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19646 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: ESPIRITU NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19646. May 31, 1965.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ESPIRITU NG, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Julio T. de la Cruz for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; P2,040 ANNUAL INCOME NOT LUCRATIVE OCCUPATION. — Considering that an applicant for naturalization resides in Manila where the standard of living is the highest in the country, his income of P2,040, or P170 a month, with free board, is far from being a lucrative occupation.

2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO INCLUDE ALL FORMER PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN PETITION FATAL. — The failure of an applicant for naturalization to include all his former places of residence in his petition prior to its filing is fatal.


D E C I S I O N


REGALA, J.:


This is an appeal by the Solicitor General’s office from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the application for Filipino citizenship of the petitioner-appellee, Espiritu Ng.

On June 3, 1959, Espiritu Ng filed with the above-named court a petition for naturalization. Among others, he claimed that he was a resident of No. 2089 Invernes St., Sta. Ana, Manila and that he had been residing therein for more than a year prior to the filing of the petition; that he was born in Manila of Chinese parents on October 26, 1938; that he was single and then employed at the Pioneer Tobacco Corporation as a supervisor with a monthly salary of P170.00; that he could speak and write English and Tagalog; that he had gone through the elementary and intermediate schools as well as the high school course (Technical and Commercial College of Baguio) and, at the time of the filing of the petition, was a third year Commerce student of the University of the East. The petitioner also declared that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his dealings with the authorities as well as with the community in which he lives. Finally, the petitioner claimed that he had mingled socially with the Filipinos and had evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos.

At the hearing, the petitioner and his character witnesses testified to the above allegations. Thereafter, the Government, thru the Solicitor General’s office, opposed the petition on four grounds, to wit: 1) that the petitioner’s character witnesses were untrustworthy; 2) that the said witnesses were in no position to vouch for his citizenship qualifications; 3) that petitioner’s occupation or income was not lucrative within the meaning of the Naturalization Law; and 4) that the petitioner was illegally using an alias.

In due time, the lower court granted the petition and ruled out the Government’s opposition thereto as "unmeritorious." Hence, the instant appeal.

In this appeal, the Solicitor General interposes more or less the same grounds as above. He questions the reliability of the petitioner’s character witnesses, the sufficiency of his income and, in addition, calls the attention of this Court to the fact that petitioner had failed to set out in the petition all his former places of residence.

Without passing on the other objections of the Government, this Court believes that this appeal is meritorious as the records do show that petitioner does not have the lucrative occupation or income contemplated by law. By his own admission, petitioner’s income is just a little over P2,040.00 annually. Of course, he claims that aside from his salary, he is also provided with some food by his employer. Be that as it may, however, although the evidence that he is also given food aside from his salary is inconclusive, We still believe that the petitioner’s income is grossly insufficient to justify the grant of citizenship to him. Considering that he resides in Manila where the standard of living is one of the highest in the whole country, there can be no question that his income is, far from being lucrative, not enough even for his basic needs.

Already, this decision has been liberal to the petitioner because We have taken into account petitioner’s own claim that his salary is P170.00 a month. For, according to his membership card at the Social Security System, his salary was only P150.00 a month. Had this been the income that We considered, then he would have been charged with a far lesser income than that which we consider to be insufficient already.

In the case of Ngo Go Liong Siu v. Republic, G. R. No. L-18319, May 31, 1963, We denied the petitioner’s application for citizenship because his proven monthly income was only P300.00. If this amount which is practically twice the income at the applicant in this case could be deemed sufficient, We simply do not see how the application at bar can be justified.

In passing, it may also be stated that the herein petitioner does not seem to have declared in his petition all his places of residence prior to its filing. Nowhere in the said petition may his Baguio residence be found, although he himself testified at the hearing of this case that he resided there for some five years. Moreover, one of the character witnesses admitted that he never met petitioner in Baguio during his alleged five years’ stay in said city. This failure is a violation of the law that cannot be overlooked since the disclosure of all previous residences of the petitioner affords the Government fuller and more reliable basis for determining his fitness or disqualification to become a Filipino citizen (Sec. 7, Revised Naturalization Law; Ngo Liong v. Republic, supra).

With our findings above, it is not necessary any more to discuss the other errors assigned.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16784 May 19, 1965 - IN RE: LIANE C. GOMEZ v. AUGUSTO G. SYJUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19997 May 19, 1965 - VISAYAN BICYCLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20139 May 19, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO MARQUEZ Y CASTRO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20282 May 19, 1965 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. EUSEBIO DAPLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20791 May 19, 1965 - MANUEL F. AQUINO, ET AL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20815 May 19, 1965 - SANTIAGO MANZANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18766 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19727 May 20, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO

  • A.C. No. 611 May 25, 1965 - BONIFACIO GARCIA, ET AL v. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20448 May 25, 1965 - NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20618 May 25, 1965 - HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES v. FLAVIANO YENKO

  • G.R. No. L-14532 & L-14533 May 26, 1965 - JOSE LEON GONZALES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13469 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO EGUAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15706 May 27, 1965 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ET AL v. MANUEL L. CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-18804 May 27, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WESTERN PACIFIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-21997 May 27, 1965 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-13816 May 31, 1965 - SEVERO ROMERO, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17132 May 31, 1965 - JUAN BENEMERITO, ET AL v. PETRONILA COSTANILLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17320 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17712 May 31, 1965 - BASILIO UNSAY, ET AL v. CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18038 May 31, 1965 - ROSA GUSTILO v. AUGUSTO GUSTILO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18348 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO CALACALA

  • G.R. No. L-18443 May 31, 1965 - ENRIQUE SISON, ET AL v. JUAN PAJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 31, 1965 - AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-18497 May 31, 1965 - DAGUPAN TRADING COMPANY v. RUSTICO MACAM

  • G.R. No. L-19346 May 31, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. LACSON, ET AL. v. ABELARDO G. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-19587 May 31, 1965 - RAFAEL JALOTJOT v. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19646 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: ESPIRITU NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19659 May 31, 1965 - DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO v. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19967 May 31, 1965 - ARSENIO REYES v. SINAI C. HAMADA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20202 May 31, 1965 - CIRIACO HERNANDEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20227 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: GO KEM LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20275-79 May 31, 1965 - VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, ET AL v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20394 May 31, 1965 - STEPHEN W. MARTIN v. CELESTINO GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20472 May 31, 1965 - MARIO F. OUANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20577 May 31, 1965 - VISAYAN PACKING CORP. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20617 May 31, 1965 - BRUNO GARCIA v. DALMACIO ANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20737 May 31, 1965 - ROQUE ESCAÑO v. RODRIGO C. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-20792 May 31, 1965 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20950 May 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AYALA Y CIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21235 May 31, 1965 - RODOLFO TIRONA v. M. CUDIAMAT

  • G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE DE LARA, JR., ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21764 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE CABILING, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO PABULAAN, ET AL.