SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20895             February 28, 1969

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF RAMON HONG CHIONG YU alias RAMON L. YOUNG TO BE ADMITTED A ClTIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. RAMON HONG CHIONG YU alias RAMON L. YOUNG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.
R. R. Quizon and R. A. Tamayo for petitioner-appellee.

MAKALINTAL, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

          Appeal by the Solicitor General from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro (Case No. R20) granting appellee's petition for naturalization. The case was submitted without petitioner-appellee's brief in reply to that of appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Petitioner was born of Chinese parents in the municipality of Capiz (now Roxas City), Province of Capiz, on January 15, 1934 and since then resided continuously in the Philippines. He studied and finished his elementary ,education in Aklan College, a Catholic institution, and his high school in the Northwestern Visayan College, both located at Kalibo, Aklan. At the time of the hearing his place of residence was Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, although he was then a fourth year chemical engineering student at the Mapua Institute of Technology, Manila. According to his petition, filed October 13, 1959, his annual income was P1,800.00 as a salesman of the Globe Bicycle Store at 564 Plaza C. de la Barca, Manila.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Two witnesses, former Congressman Conrado Morente and Mayor Dominador Madrid, both residents of Pinamalayan, vouched for petitioner's good moral character and irreproachable conduct.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          In his appeal, the Solicitor General alleges that the court a quo erred in granting the petition notwithstanding: (1) the failure of petitioner-appellee to indicate in his petition his former place or places of residence; (2) his insufficient annual income, alleged in the petition to be only P1,800.00; and (3) the fact that petitioner was using an alias without judicial authority.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          The evidence is not clear insofar as the first error is concerned. But even only on the ground stated in the second assignment of error, this appeal must be sustained. As alleged in the petition, petitioner-appellee's annual income was P1,800.00, or P150.00 a month. We have repeatedly held that such an amount is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Naturalization law that the applicant must have a lucrative occupation or calling. (Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-12400, March 29, 1961; Richard Velasco vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-12214, May 25, 1960; Tan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-14861, March 17, 1961; Zacarias vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961), nor a monthly income of P200.00 (Go vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-18068, October 30, 1962; Ong Lim Chuan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964; Koh Chet Hianchit S. Chua vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-17223, June 30, 1964; Chua vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19695, October 31, 1964; Tan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19580, April 30,1965; Yap vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19649, April 30, 1965, Lim Uy vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19916, June 23, 1965; Co vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-21078, April 29, 1966; and Chua Tak Seng vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-21599, October 29, 1966).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          The fact that petitioner-appellee, as found by the court a quo, was receiving an additional income of P100.00 monthly from his tutorial class, increasing his total monthly income to P250.00, does not meet the statutory requirement. (Uy vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-20208, June 30, 1965; Uy vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-20799, November 29, 1965; Sy vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19581, April 29, 1966; and Tan Tiu vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-21018, November 29, 1966.) Indeed even a monthly income of P300.00 has been held insufficient (Sia Faw vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-24782, November 17, 1967).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the petition is denied, with costs against petitioner-appellee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Sanchez and Barredo, JJ., took no part.