Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > December 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18242 December 24, 1963 - IN RE: OSCAR TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18242. December 24, 1963.]

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

Nicasio Cabalza for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; QUALIFICATIONS; LUCRATIVE PROFESSION; BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP WITH FATHER MUST BE PROVEN BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. — The claim that petitioner-appellee has a share in the capital of the business of his father is held to be of doubtful veracity because no written evidence of any sort had been submitted to prove the existence of the supposed partnership or of payment of taxes by him; these circumstances lead the Court to believe that the alleged membership of applicant in his father’s business was only a scheme to enable the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the law as to the possession of a lucrative profession.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INCOME OF FROM P130 to P170 PER MONTH NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENTLY LUCRATIVE. — Even if it were true, as claimed by petitioner and his father, that petitioner has an income of from P130.00 to P170.00 per month, such income is not considered sufficiently lucrative to satisfy the requirement of the law.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, Hon. Guillermo Dacumos, presiding, approving the petition of Oscar Tan for naturalization. The Solicitor General alleges in his brief that the judge below erred in finding that the petitioner for naturalization Oscar Tan has all the qualifications required by law to become a Filipino Citizen.

The Court below found that the petitioner herein is a citizen of the Republic of China, born in Tuao, Cagayan on July 16, 1937, single, who had resided in the Philippines from birth up to the present; that he has been a student of public schools or Government recognized schools, and is at present a second year pre-med student in the School of Medicine of the University of Santo Tomas. The court below further found that he is a partner of his father in his business of dry goods and "sari-sari" in Tuao, Cagayan with a share of the capital therein in the amount of P5,000.00.

In arguing for the revocation of the decision the Solicitor General contends that there is doubt that petitioner’s claim that he has a lucrative trade, profession or occupation is true, as according to the evidence, petitioner was supposedly given by his father P5,000.00 which he invested in his father’s store and from which investment he derives an annual income of P1,300.00 to P1,700.00 which he spends for his subsistence. It is argued that there is no documentary evidence submitted to establish the existence of the alleged partnership between petitioner and his father, or receipts of payment of taxes due from him by reason of the alleged partnership. It is also argued that petitioner pays no income taxes and does not even have a Class B residence certificate, which is a violation of Com. Act No. 456, as amended by Rep. Act No. 545.

In answer to the Solicitor General’s contention, counsel for petitioner-appellee cites the pertinent portions of petitioner’s testimony and that of his father; attesting to the supposed existence of the business capitalized at P17,000.00 in which his father is engaged; and the share of petitioner in the amount of P5,000.00 from which share he receives an income of around P120.00 per month.

The claim that petitioner-appellee has a share in the capital of the business of his father is of doubtful veracity; no written evidence of any sort has been submitted to prove the existence of the supposed partnership. If it were really true that petitioner has a share in the partnership, partnership papers would have been submitted and the business should have been registered in the name of the partnership. Further, the fact of the partnership would have been shown in the books of the business as well as in the income tax returns therefor, because the share of the petitioner in the partnership renders him an income of P130.00 per month so that the partnership should be netting an income of around P3,000.00 per year.

The fact that there is no documentary evidence of the supposed existence of the partnership and of the business thereof convinces the Court that the existence of the partnership and the participation of petitioner in the business thereof was only a scheme conceived to enable the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the law as to the possession of a lucrative profession. The Court believes with the Solicitor General that the business belongs to petitioner’s father who only sends part of his earnings for the support of his son and for his studies.

The provisions of the Naturalization Law on the possession of a lucrative profession are clear and explicit (Sec. 2, par. 4, Com. Act No. 473). It is the intention of the legal provision not to allow the admission as citizens of individuals who do not possess the necessary property or business.

But even if it were true, as claimed by petitioner and his father, that petitioner has an income of from P130.00 to P170.00 per month, such income is not considered sufficiently lucrative to satisfy the requirement of the law. (Que Choc Qui v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16184, Sept. 30, 1961; Zacarias v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961; and Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12400 and L-14861, March 17, 1961.)

Finding the argument of the Solicitor General, that the existence of a lucrative profession of the petitioner-appellee has not been proved by competent evidence, to be well taken, the Court finds that the petitioner has not established that he possesses the necessary qualification required in Sec. 2, par. 4 or Com. Act No. 473, and hereby sets aside the order appealed from and decrees the dismissal of the petition for naturalization, with costs against petitioner appellee. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





December-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11840 December 10, 1963 - ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY, ET AL. v. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19363 December 19, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO CORDERO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 258 December 21, 1963 - RUFINA BAUTISTA v. ATTY. BENJAMIN O. BARRIOS

  • G.R. No. L-18785 December 23, 1963 - ANDREA TORMON v. DOMINADOR CUTANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16711 December 24, 1963 - CRISTINO ORA-A v. JOSE A. ANGUSTIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18213 December 24, 1963 - LUI LIN v. JAINUDIN NUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18242 December 24, 1963 - IN RE: OSCAR TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18615 December 24, 1963 - AMANDO M. DIZON v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

  • G.R. No. L-18898 December 24, 1963 - IN RE: WONG KIT KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20381 December 24, 1963 - FILIPINO PIPE & FOUNDRY CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21107 December 24, 1963 - ROBERTO F. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. EMETERIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14878 December 26, 1963 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15470 December 26, 1963 - CONNELL BROS. CO., (PHIL.) v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16854 December 26, 1963 - PATROCINIO QUIBUYEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16904 December 26, 1963 - BANK OF AMERICA (Mla. Branch) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17336 December 26, 1963 - DAMASO ALIPIO, ET AL. v. JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17440 December 26, 1963 - PERFECTA CRUZ v. ALIPIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17453 December 26, 1963 - PEDRO GALLARDO v. COROMINAS, RICHARDS NAVIGATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18018 December 26, 1963 - ESPERANZA ESPIRITU, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO VALERIO

  • G.R. No. L-18047 December 26, 1963 - IN RE: TRINIDAD R. ASENSI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18561 December 26, 1963 - GSIS EMPLOYEES’ ASSO., ET AL. v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18608 December 26, 1963 - DY KIM LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18975 December 26, 1963 - CITY OF NAGA v. BELEN R. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-19104 December 26, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. HILARIO DE CHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19160 December 26, 1963 - MARSMAN INVESTMENTS LTD., ET AL. v. PHIL. ABACA DEV. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20513 December 26, 1963 - LIM CHIOK, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-11861 December 27, 1963 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WILLIAM LI YAO

  • G.R. No. L-13882 December 27, 1963 - VALERIANO C. BUENO v. PEDRO B. PATANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15721 December 27, 1963 - AMADOR G. CAPIRAL v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16813 December 27, 1963 - GO BON THE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17096 December 27, 1963 - RODOLFO VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18009 December 27, 1963 - IN RE: NICOLAS LOO TEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18219 December 27, 1963 - NANIKRAN SERWANI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • .R. No. L-18241 December 27, 1963 - SANTIAGO VICENTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18248 December 27, 1963 - UY TIAN IT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18512 December 27, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMACO BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18797 December 27, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CLARITA CUAYCONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18977 December 27, 1963 - FILOMENA CUSTODIO, ET AL. v. FILOMENA CASIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19017 December 27, 1963 - NAT’L. BREWERY AND ALLIED IND. LABOR UNION OF THE PHIL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19100 December 27, 1963 - FELICIANO Z. TIMBANCAYA v. SEVERINO E. VICENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19131 December 27, 1963 - PATROCINIO BUENTIPO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER

  • G.R. No. L-19369 December 27, 1963 - NARCISO PERU v. NICANOR C. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19854 December 27, 1963 - NATIONAL DEV’T. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20272 December 27, 1963 - GUILLERMO BA. SOREÑO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20784 December 27, 1963 - SUN PECK YONG, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21136 December 27, 1963 - TONG SIOK SY v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21728 December 27, 1963 - HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22135 December 27, 1963 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE-TRANSPORTATION CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11875 December 28, 1963 - WILLIAM LI YAO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-14583 December 28, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS USAB MOHAMAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16216 December 28, 1963 - PASTOR B. CONSTANTINO v. BLAS AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15526 December 28, 1963 - ENRIQUE J. L. RUIZ, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18928 December 28, 1963 - ANGELES CASON v. VICENTE SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19147-48 December 28, 1963 - ALBINO NICOLAS, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS