February 1969 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > February 1969 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-20895 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: RAMON HONG CHIONG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
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 CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. RAMON HONG CHIONG YU alias RAMON L. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
R. R. Quizon and R. A. Tamayo for Petitioner-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; LUCRATIVE INCOME. — Monthly income of P250.00 is not lucrative. 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 v. Republic, G.R. L-12400, March 29, 1961, reiterated in other cases) The fact that petitioner-appellee, as found by the court a quo, was receiving an additional income of P250.00 monthly from his tutorial class, increasing his total monthly income to P250.00, does not meet the statutory requirement (Uy v. Republic, G.R. 20799, June 30, 1965, etc.). Indeed even a monthly income of P300.00 has been held insufficient (Sia Faw v. Republic, G.R. No. L-24782, November 17, 1967).
D E C I S I O N
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Appeal by the Solicitor General from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro (Case No. R-20) granting appellee’s petition for naturalization. The case was submitted without petitioner-appellee’s brief in reply to that of appellant.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
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 Bicyle Store at 564 Plaza C. de la Barca, Manila.
Two witnesses, former Congressman Conrado Morente and Mayor Dominador Madrid, both residents of Pinamalayan, vouched for petitioner’s good moral character and irreproachable conduct.
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.chanrobles.com.ph : 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 v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12400, March 29, 1961; Richard Velasco v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12214, May 25, 1960; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14861, March 17, 1961; Zacarias v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961), nor a monthly income of P200.00 (Go v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18068, October 30, 1962; Ong Lim Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964; Koh Chet Hianchit S. Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. L- 17223, June 30, 1964; Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19695, October 31, 1964; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19580, April 30, 1965; Yap v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19649, April 30, 1965; Lim Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19916, June 23, 1965; Co v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21078, April 29, 1966; and Chua Tak Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21599, October 29, 1966).
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 v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20208, June 30, 1965; Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20799, November 29, 1965; Sy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19581, April 29, 1966; and Tan Tiu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21018, November 29, 1966) Indeed even a monthly income of P300.00 has been held insufficient (Sia Faw v. Republic, G.R. No. L-24782, November 17, 1967).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the petition is denied, with costs against Petitioner-Appellee.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Sanchez and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.
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 Bicyle Store at 564 Plaza C. de la Barca, Manila.
Two witnesses, former Congressman Conrado Morente and Mayor Dominador Madrid, both residents of Pinamalayan, vouched for petitioner’s good moral character and irreproachable conduct.
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.chanrobles.com.ph : 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 v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12400, March 29, 1961; Richard Velasco v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12214, May 25, 1960; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14861, March 17, 1961; Zacarias v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961), nor a monthly income of P200.00 (Go v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18068, October 30, 1962; Ong Lim Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964; Koh Chet Hianchit S. Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. L- 17223, June 30, 1964; Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19695, October 31, 1964; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19580, April 30, 1965; Yap v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19649, April 30, 1965; Lim Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19916, June 23, 1965; Co v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21078, April 29, 1966; and Chua Tak Seng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21599, October 29, 1966).
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 v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20208, June 30, 1965; Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20799, November 29, 1965; Sy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19581, April 29, 1966; and Tan Tiu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21018, November 29, 1966) Indeed even a monthly income of P300.00 has been held insufficient (Sia Faw v. Republic, G.R. No. L-24782, November 17, 1967).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the petition is denied, with costs against Petitioner-Appellee.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Sanchez and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.
