SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21739 May 30, 1967

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF ONG CHIAN SUY. ONG CHIAN SUY, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General I. C. Borromeo and Solicitor D. I. Quiroz for oppositor-appellant.
Perfecto P. T. Chua Cheng for petitioner-appellee.

SANCHEZ, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

On petition for naturalization.¹ The trial court found that petitioner Ong Chian Suy possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications set forth in the Revised Naturalization Law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Republic appealed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On two grounds the judgment must be reversed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

First, the petition states that petitioner's present place of residence is San Roque, Iriga, Camarines Sur, and one other former place of residence - Amoy, China. But petitioner testified that he also "stayed in Naga City" and attended school in Tabaco," Albay where he "finished second year high school."² Naga City and Tabaco are, therefore, two places of petitioner's former residence. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires that a petition for naturalization state petitioner's "present and former places of residence." Residence contemplated in Section 7 "encompasses all places where petitioner actually and physically resided."³ The philosophy behind the rule requiring recital in the petition of former places of residence is that "information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding.⁴ The established jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is that failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal.⁵chanrobles virtual law library

Second. The petition avers that petitioner, a merchant, has "an average annual income of P5,000.00, more or less." His income tax return for 1960⁶ records a net income of P5,593.75. For 1961 (he filed his application for naturalization on March 28, 1961), he estimates his net income rise to "around P6,000.00."⁷ Petitioner's witness Felix G. Corporal, however, in answer to a question by the court, declared: "[h]is (petitioner's) income is around P2,000.00 a year."⁸ His other witness, Rufino S. Llagas, also testified that: "[i]n one of our conversations, I happened to ask him (petitioner) and he said that by now his income is around P2,000.00."⁹ Petitioner has a wife and three (3) minor children to support. Therefore, whichever version we consider, the fact remains that petitioner cannot be regarded as one with a lucrative income. ¹⁰ chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed, and the petition of Ong Chian Suy for Filipino citizenship is hereby denied. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.

¹Naturalization Case No. 141, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, entitled "In the Matter of the Petition for Naturalization of Ong Chian Suy.

²T.S.N., February 9, 1962, pp. 14, 16.

³Tan vs. Republic, L-22207, May 30, 1966, citing Qua vs. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964.

⁴Qua vs. Republic, supra.

⁵Tan vs. Republic, supra.

⁶Exhibit M.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

⁷At the time he testified on February 9, 1962, his income tax return was still in the process of preparation. T.S.N., February 9, 1962, p. 5.

⁸T.S.N., December 15, 1961, p. 18.

⁹T.S.N., December 15, 1961, p. 40.

¹⁰See cases cited with approval in Law Tai vs. Republic, L-20623, April 27, 1967.