SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-4397           October 24, 1952
IN RE: DELFIN LIMTAO. DELFIN LIMTAO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4397           October 24, 1952

In the matter of the petition of Delfin Limtao, to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines. DELFIN LIMTAO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Florencio Villamor for appellant.
Tomas Yumol for appellee.

PARAS, C.J.: chanrobles virtual law library

This is an appeal by the Government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, granting the petition for naturalization of the petitioner-appellee, Delfin Limtao.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only contention raised by the Solicitor General is that the appellee lacks one of the qualifications prescribed in section 2, paragraph 4, of the Revised Naturalization Law, namely, that "he must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation." This contention is well-taken, it appearing that the appealed decision expressly finds that the appellee actually lives with his parents who support him, that he does not own any property or business, and that he is a student of Far Eastern University under the support of his parents. Counsel for appellee argues that the latter helps in his father's grocery store, and that although the appellee does not receive any salary for his work, the support given by his father may well be considered as regular compensation. It is obvious that in the very nature of things, regardless of the help rendered by the appellee, his parents with whom he lives and who know that he has no independent income, are morally bound to support him; and there is no showing that, if the appellee does not help his father in the latter's grocery store, he would not be supported.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As the appellee does not possess all the qualifications prescribed by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, the appealed decision will be as it is hereby reversed and his petition for naturalization denied. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.