SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20373      December 24, 1965

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. WONG KIM GOON, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Sadang and Sagrada Law Office for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.

BENGZON, J.P., J.:

A petition for naturalization, filed by Wong Kim Goon, was granted by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. Hence, this appeal by the Republic from the court a quo's decision of August 11, 1962.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The record shows that Wong Kim Goon, a citizen of the Republic of China, was born in Canton, China, on November 20, 1906. After arriving in the Philippines on May 29, 1918, he stayed in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. It was there that he studied, up to grade VII, and it is there that he has been residing up to now.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Wong Kim Goon is married. As of the time he applied for naturalization, on February 26, 1960, he had six children. An owner of two stores, he derives an average annual income, according to his income tax returns from 1956 to 1960, of P6,000. A lesser amount is even stated in his petition, namely, P4,000 per annum.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is evident, therefore, that petitioner's application cannot prosper. In Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961, this Court ruled that for a petitioner who has five children and a wife to support, an annual income of P8,687.50 is not lucrative. And in Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 13, 1963, an income of P6,800 per year was held not lucrative for a married applicant who had one child. Petitioner, as stated, is married and has six children. Five of them are still dependent on him for support (one is already married). Clearly, he failed to meet the requirement of a lucrative trade, profession or occupation (Sec. 2, Par. 4, Com. Act 473). Such being the case, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other points raised by appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization is hereby denied, without costs. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Barrera, J., took no part.