April 1966 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-19502. April 29, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. PEDRO CO., Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, and Solicitor H. C. Fule, for oppositor and Appellant.
De Leon, De Leon and N. V. Benedicto Jr., for petitioner and appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; FAILURE TO PROVE LUCRATIVE INCOME DISQUALIFIES APPLICANT. — A married applicant for naturalization with an average annual income of P2,320.00 is disqualified to become a naturalized Filipino on the ground that he is not engaged in a lucrative trade, profession or occupation within the meaning of the Naturalization Law.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
In this case, the Manila court of first instance approved the petition for naturalization of Pedro Co, a Chinese citizen married to Anita Lim. Its decision was in due time appealed by the Solicitor-General, whose office questions the sufficiency of the qualifications of said petitioner, sustaining the proposition, among others, that he had no lucrative trade, profession or occupation.
It is admitted that for the past three years before the hearing, Pedro Co’s average annual income was P2,320.00 1 only. In the light of our decisions, he is deemed to have no lucrative income, considering further that he has a wife to support.
1. Applicant, married, earning P400.00 a month, held to have no lucrative trade or occupation (Yu Kian v. Republic, L-20169, February 26, 1965).
2. Applicant, single, with P250.00 monthly income, denied naturalization for having no lucrative occupation (Uy v. Republic, L-20799, November 29, 1965).
3. Applicant, single, with P3,600.00 annual income, denied naturalization for having no lucrative business, trade or occupation (Uy v. Republic, L-20208, June 30, 1965).
4. See also Yap v. Republic, L-19649, April 30, 1965, and Tan v. Republic L-20021, June 23, 1965.
Wherefore, without passing on the other objections of the Republic’s counsel, we hereby sustain this appeal, reverse the decision a quo, and deny the petition for naturalization. Costs against appellee.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
It is admitted that for the past three years before the hearing, Pedro Co’s average annual income was P2,320.00 1 only. In the light of our decisions, he is deemed to have no lucrative income, considering further that he has a wife to support.
1. Applicant, married, earning P400.00 a month, held to have no lucrative trade or occupation (Yu Kian v. Republic, L-20169, February 26, 1965).
2. Applicant, single, with P250.00 monthly income, denied naturalization for having no lucrative occupation (Uy v. Republic, L-20799, November 29, 1965).
3. Applicant, single, with P3,600.00 annual income, denied naturalization for having no lucrative business, trade or occupation (Uy v. Republic, L-20208, June 30, 1965).
4. See also Yap v. Republic, L-19649, April 30, 1965, and Tan v. Republic L-20021, June 23, 1965.
Wherefore, without passing on the other objections of the Republic’s counsel, we hereby sustain this appeal, reverse the decision a quo, and deny the petition for naturalization. Costs against appellee.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. 1959 — P1800; 1959 — P2160; 1960 — P3000.
