June 1965 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > June 1965 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-16767 June 30, 1965 - IN RE: TAN NGA KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-16767. June 30, 1965.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN NGA KOK TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. TAN NGA KOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Jose A. Uy for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; P400.00 MONTHLY INCOME NOT LUCRATIVE. — A monthly income of P400.00 for an applicant for naturalization supporting his mother, three brothers and one sister cannot be considered a lucrative occupation.
2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO MENTION ALL PLACES OF RESIDENCE FATAL. — The failure to mention in the petition and in the declaration of intention the other places of residence of the petitioner is fatal to a petition for naturalization.
2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO MENTION ALL PLACES OF RESIDENCE FATAL. — The failure to mention in the petition and in the declaration of intention the other places of residence of the petitioner is fatal to a petition for naturalization.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
Tan Nga Kok, a Chinese citizen, has appealed from the decision of the Manila court of first instance denying his application to become a Filipino.
It appears that the Hon. Antonio Cañizares, then judge, found him not qualified, because of material contradictions in his testimonial evidence — especially as to his age, his alleged yearly income, and his family affairs. We have examined the record and we cannot say that His Honor abused his discretion. Furthermore, there are two important reasons that stand in the way of herein appellant’s naturalization: (a) his income is not enough; (b) he has lived in two places, but he mentioned only one.
As to (a) he swore he was earning P400 a month. The trial judge did not believe it. Supposing he did earn that much, still in the light of our decisions, he may be said to have no lucrative occupation — and disqualified — considering that he supports his mother, three brothers and one sister. 1
(b) And then, the certificates and documents herein petitioner submitted referred to Tan Nga Kok of 676-680 Rizal Avenue (Exhs. E, J- 8 and J-6), of 680 Rizal Avenue (Exhs. F and F-1) and 676 Rizal Avenue (Exh. K). And yet, in his petition and in his testimony in court, he said he resided at 666-B Rizal Avenue. This discrepancy either has the effect of disproving his material affirmative allegations in court or of showing that he had two or more residences and failed to mention in his declaration of intention and application his other residences. This failure constitutes sufficient ground to deny his petition for naturalization. 2
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., took no part.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
It appears that the Hon. Antonio Cañizares, then judge, found him not qualified, because of material contradictions in his testimonial evidence — especially as to his age, his alleged yearly income, and his family affairs. We have examined the record and we cannot say that His Honor abused his discretion. Furthermore, there are two important reasons that stand in the way of herein appellant’s naturalization: (a) his income is not enough; (b) he has lived in two places, but he mentioned only one.
As to (a) he swore he was earning P400 a month. The trial judge did not believe it. Supposing he did earn that much, still in the light of our decisions, he may be said to have no lucrative occupation — and disqualified — considering that he supports his mother, three brothers and one sister. 1
(b) And then, the certificates and documents herein petitioner submitted referred to Tan Nga Kok of 676-680 Rizal Avenue (Exhs. E, J- 8 and J-6), of 680 Rizal Avenue (Exhs. F and F-1) and 676 Rizal Avenue (Exh. K). And yet, in his petition and in his testimony in court, he said he resided at 666-B Rizal Avenue. This discrepancy either has the effect of disproving his material affirmative allegations in court or of showing that he had two or more residences and failed to mention in his declaration of intention and application his other residences. This failure constitutes sufficient ground to deny his petition for naturalization. 2
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., took no part.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
Endnotes:
1. Naturalization denied in Yu Kian Che v. Republic, L-20169, Feb. 26, 1965, P400 a month, living with wife; in Kuan Kwock How v. Republic, L-18521, Jan. 30, 1964, income P5,000 a year with wife and five children; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965, P7,799 a year; P6,300 with one wife and one child (Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963.)
2. Tan v. Republic, L-19694, March 30, 1965; Lee Ng Leu v. Republic, L-20151, March 31, 1965; Cheng v. Republic, L-20013, March 30, 1965; Go v. Republic, L-20558, March 31, 1965, and many others.
