SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANTONIO L. CO FOR NATURALIZATION. ANTONIO L. CO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General E. Umali and Solicitor A. M. Consing, for oppositor-appellant.
Juan G. Lagman, for petitioner-appellee.

MAKALINTAL, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

Antonio L. Co, born in Pampanga in in 1947, citizen of Nacionalist China, applied for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of said province. In its decision of March 24, 1962 the court found him qualified and granted his application. The Solicitor General appealed on one ground: that appellant does not fulfill the requirement of lucrative trade or occupation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In other respects indeed the record discloses that the applicant's qualifications adequately meet the legal requirements. He has lived in the Philippines continuously, leaving only once in 1947 for a four-month visit in Amoy with his parents. He received his elementary and secondary education in the Guagua National Colleges, Pampanga, and obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science from the University of the East, Manila. His conduct, moral character, association with Filipinos and desire to embrace the native customs, ideals and traditions are duly vouched for and established by the evidence. So are his political convictions and sympathies, his knowledge of the principles underlying the Constitution, his lack of criminal record, his physical and mental health, and his sincerity and good faith in desiring Philippine citizenship.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On the issues raised by the Solicitor General, however, this appeal must be sustained. For the applicant's income of P200.00 a month, received by him, he testified, as assistant manager of is parents' sugar cane farm, cannot be considered lucrative for purposes of naturalization. Our ruling to this effect has been laid down in so many recent decisions that an extensive review thereof is unnecessary (see Antonio Dy vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20348, December 24, 1965 and cases cited).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and petition for naturalization is dismissed. Costs against petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.