December 1965 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > December 1965 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-21019 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO PO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-21019. December 24, 1965.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANTONIO PO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANTONIO PO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Felix V. Barbers for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; LUCRATIVE INCOME; PETITIONER’S TESTIMONY MUST BE ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED. — Where none of the witnesses offered by petitioner testified on his possession of a lucrative employment or profession, the first witness merely declaring in general terms that he believed that petitioner "possesses all the qualifications to be admitted as Filipino citizen" and the other witness while declaring petitioner to be fully qualified did not say anything about petitioner’s lucrative income, and his testimony thereon stands without adequate corroboration, such broad and general statement do not support the burden of proof that the law places on the shoulders of the applicant.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MUST BE ADEQUATE AND DERIVED FROM STABLE SOURCE. — Petitioner’s income of P250.00 per month as collector of the Surigao Chinese Chamber of Commerce is not sufficient to satisfy the Naturalization Law, in the amount and in its steadiness. The income of P250.00 a month is not lucrative in view of the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso, and it is not stable because the employment of the petitioner depends on whoever is the president of the chamber of commerce.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MUST BE ADEQUATE AND DERIVED FROM STABLE SOURCE. — Petitioner’s income of P250.00 per month as collector of the Surigao Chinese Chamber of Commerce is not sufficient to satisfy the Naturalization Law, in the amount and in its steadiness. The income of P250.00 a month is not lucrative in view of the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso, and it is not stable because the employment of the petitioner depends on whoever is the president of the chamber of commerce.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Appeal by the government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Surigao (Judge Teofilo Buslon, presiding) admitting the petitioner-appellee Antonio Po to Philippine citizenship.
The said petitioner-appellee was born of Chinese parents, on 13 July 1937 in Surigao, Surigao del Norte, and has resided continuously in the Philippines. The oppositor government has admitted the following facts in its brief: that the petitioner finished his primary course in the Kwa Siang, now Surigao Chinese School, and his secondary education at the San Nicolas College, Surigao, Surigao del Norte, which schools are recognized by the government and are not limited to any race, creed or nationality and where history, government and civics are taught; that he has no criminal or derogatory record, is physically fit and mentally sound; that he believes in the principles underlying the Constitution, and has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner towards the government and to the people of the community wherein he resides that he mingles socially with Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to embrace our ideals, customs and traditions; that he is not opposed to organized government; that he is neither a polygamist nor a believer in polygamy; and that his desire to become a Filipino is in good faith.
Oppositor government, however, raised the present appeal on the sole issue as to whether or not the applicant has a lucrative income.
Petitioner-appellee Antonio Po is single and is employed as collector of the Surigao Chamber of Commerce (Exhs. E & H) with an alleged salary of P250 a month (Exhs. 2, 2-C & 2-D). He holds such employment for so long as Go Tong Hay is the president; applicant’s position depends upon the selection of the succeeding presidents of the chamber who are elected every year (tsn. p. 84). He gets free board and lodging by living with his widowed mother. He claims an additional income, in an undisclosed amount, by helping her mother run a store.
All the foregoing claims of income were based on the petitioner’s testimony and his income tax return for 1961, which was filed in 1962, subsequent to the filing of the present petition in June 1961. His certificate of employment (Exh. E) did not state how much he was being paid; his 1961 income tax return, which reflected a gross income of P3,100, was the only return he ever filed. This return did not corroborate his alleged additional income from his mother’s store. Neither Go Tong Hay nor his mother were presented as witnesses. In an affidavit taken by the NBI, applicant claimed no other income aside from his salary from the Chamber. The claim is rendered the more dubious because his main duty was to collect rentals of stores located in the first floor of the Chamber’s building and the aggregate rentals are only P960 a month (tsn., p. 68), and he never earned at all previous to 1961 (tsn., p. 67) (Cf. Lee v. Republic, L-20148, 30 April 1965).
It is significant that none of the witnesses offered by petitioner testified on the latter’s possession of a lucrative employment or profession, although this requirement is one of the qualifications that, under the law, an applicant for naturalization must possess. The first witness (Vice-Mayor Borja) merely declared in general terms that he believed that petitioner "possesses all the qualifications to be admitted as Filipino citizen" (tsn, p. 81), and we have ruled that such broad and general statements do not support the burden of proof that the law places on the shoulders of the applicant. 1 The other witness, Miguel Calderon, also declared petitioner to be fully qualified specifying that he speaks English and Visayan, mingles with Filipinos, and is of good moral character (tsn, pp. 94-95), but like Vice-Mayor Borja, Calderon did not say anything about petitioner’s income or means. Hence the latter’s testimony thereon stands without adequate corroboration.
The alleged income of petitioner, even if true, would not be sufficient to satisfy the Naturalization Law, in the amount and in its steadiness. It is true that in Ong v. Republic, L-15764, 19 May 1961, we held that a petitioner earning less than P250 a month does not possess a lucrative trade or profession. It does not, however, mean that when the P250-a-month bracket is reached, the income already satisfies the law because the cost of living has continued going up since the Ong case, while the purchasing power of money has gone down. Indeed, in Tan v. Republic, L-16013, 30 March 1963, we held that a petitioner’s income of P3,000 a year, combined with his wife’s income of P3,000 a year and having one (1) child, is not lucrative income (See also Sia v. Republic, L-20290, 30 August 1965). The situation of the present petitioner is aggravated by the fact that since his employment depends on whoever is the president of the chamber of commerce, there is not enough stability in his alleged present salary.
In Felix Tan v. Republic, G.R. L-19580, April 30, 1965, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Zaldivar, explained the scope of the lucrative employment requirement as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Lucrative employment means a gainful employment. It is not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one’s becoming the object of charity or a public charge. We believe that the petitioner-appellee in the present case, who earns only around P145.00 a month does not have an employment that is lucrative enough as to consider him not subject to the hazards of penury in the event of unemployment, sickness or disability."cralaw virtua1aw library
Plainly, petitioner herein fails to meet the standards thus set. In fact, through the thin veil of the free board and lodging pretense, allegedly for services to his mother’s store, it can be discerned that petitioner is still dependent upon his mother for support.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the decree admitting appellee Antonio Po to naturalization is set aside, with costs against said appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
The said petitioner-appellee was born of Chinese parents, on 13 July 1937 in Surigao, Surigao del Norte, and has resided continuously in the Philippines. The oppositor government has admitted the following facts in its brief: that the petitioner finished his primary course in the Kwa Siang, now Surigao Chinese School, and his secondary education at the San Nicolas College, Surigao, Surigao del Norte, which schools are recognized by the government and are not limited to any race, creed or nationality and where history, government and civics are taught; that he has no criminal or derogatory record, is physically fit and mentally sound; that he believes in the principles underlying the Constitution, and has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner towards the government and to the people of the community wherein he resides that he mingles socially with Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to embrace our ideals, customs and traditions; that he is not opposed to organized government; that he is neither a polygamist nor a believer in polygamy; and that his desire to become a Filipino is in good faith.
Oppositor government, however, raised the present appeal on the sole issue as to whether or not the applicant has a lucrative income.
Petitioner-appellee Antonio Po is single and is employed as collector of the Surigao Chamber of Commerce (Exhs. E & H) with an alleged salary of P250 a month (Exhs. 2, 2-C & 2-D). He holds such employment for so long as Go Tong Hay is the president; applicant’s position depends upon the selection of the succeeding presidents of the chamber who are elected every year (tsn. p. 84). He gets free board and lodging by living with his widowed mother. He claims an additional income, in an undisclosed amount, by helping her mother run a store.
All the foregoing claims of income were based on the petitioner’s testimony and his income tax return for 1961, which was filed in 1962, subsequent to the filing of the present petition in June 1961. His certificate of employment (Exh. E) did not state how much he was being paid; his 1961 income tax return, which reflected a gross income of P3,100, was the only return he ever filed. This return did not corroborate his alleged additional income from his mother’s store. Neither Go Tong Hay nor his mother were presented as witnesses. In an affidavit taken by the NBI, applicant claimed no other income aside from his salary from the Chamber. The claim is rendered the more dubious because his main duty was to collect rentals of stores located in the first floor of the Chamber’s building and the aggregate rentals are only P960 a month (tsn., p. 68), and he never earned at all previous to 1961 (tsn., p. 67) (Cf. Lee v. Republic, L-20148, 30 April 1965).
It is significant that none of the witnesses offered by petitioner testified on the latter’s possession of a lucrative employment or profession, although this requirement is one of the qualifications that, under the law, an applicant for naturalization must possess. The first witness (Vice-Mayor Borja) merely declared in general terms that he believed that petitioner "possesses all the qualifications to be admitted as Filipino citizen" (tsn, p. 81), and we have ruled that such broad and general statements do not support the burden of proof that the law places on the shoulders of the applicant. 1 The other witness, Miguel Calderon, also declared petitioner to be fully qualified specifying that he speaks English and Visayan, mingles with Filipinos, and is of good moral character (tsn, pp. 94-95), but like Vice-Mayor Borja, Calderon did not say anything about petitioner’s income or means. Hence the latter’s testimony thereon stands without adequate corroboration.
The alleged income of petitioner, even if true, would not be sufficient to satisfy the Naturalization Law, in the amount and in its steadiness. It is true that in Ong v. Republic, L-15764, 19 May 1961, we held that a petitioner earning less than P250 a month does not possess a lucrative trade or profession. It does not, however, mean that when the P250-a-month bracket is reached, the income already satisfies the law because the cost of living has continued going up since the Ong case, while the purchasing power of money has gone down. Indeed, in Tan v. Republic, L-16013, 30 March 1963, we held that a petitioner’s income of P3,000 a year, combined with his wife’s income of P3,000 a year and having one (1) child, is not lucrative income (See also Sia v. Republic, L-20290, 30 August 1965). The situation of the present petitioner is aggravated by the fact that since his employment depends on whoever is the president of the chamber of commerce, there is not enough stability in his alleged present salary.
In Felix Tan v. Republic, G.R. L-19580, April 30, 1965, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Zaldivar, explained the scope of the lucrative employment requirement as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Lucrative employment means a gainful employment. It is not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one’s becoming the object of charity or a public charge. We believe that the petitioner-appellee in the present case, who earns only around P145.00 a month does not have an employment that is lucrative enough as to consider him not subject to the hazards of penury in the event of unemployment, sickness or disability."cralaw virtua1aw library
Plainly, petitioner herein fails to meet the standards thus set. In fact, through the thin veil of the free board and lodging pretense, allegedly for services to his mother’s store, it can be discerned that petitioner is still dependent upon his mother for support.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the decree admitting appellee Antonio Po to naturalization is set aside, with costs against said appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Chua v. Republic, L-17774, May 30, 1964.
