EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-13177. August 31, 1960. ]
SWEE DIN TAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor C. S. Baradi for Appellant.
Jose E. Fernandez for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENT OF LUCRATIVE EMPLOYMENT; APPLICANT RECEIVING P200.00 MONTHLY WITH THREE CHILDREN TO SUPPORT. —With the low purchasing power of the peso, an applicant for naturalization with three children to support can hardly make both ends meet, if he earns P200.00 a month only. Hence, he may not be considered to have a lucrative employment.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
The Solicitor-General has appealed from the decision of the Sulu court of first instance granting the petition of Swee Din Tan to be admitted as naturalized citizen of this country. He contends that contrary to legal requirements, petitioner had failed positively to prove his moral irreproachability.
We find a sounder reason to refuse citizenship: no lucrative employment. It is admitted that Swee Din Tan, with a wife and three children, is a mere employee receiving P200.00 a month only. We think that at the present valuation of the peso, petitioner may have an employment; but he has not a "lucrative" employment. It is true, we have held in some cases that an alien receiving P80.00, P140.00 or P250.00 a month had a lucrative employment; but the applicants therein received free board and lodging. 1 It is also true that we admitted to citizenship persons whose income did not exceed P250.00 or P200.00 a month, with no lodging; however, the applicants therein had no children. 2 At any rate, with the low purchasing power of our currency, a married man with three children to support can hardly make both ends meet, if he makes P200.00 a month only. Therefore, he may not be held to have a lucrative employment.
Decision reversed. Petition for naturalization denied, with costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
We find a sounder reason to refuse citizenship: no lucrative employment. It is admitted that Swee Din Tan, with a wife and three children, is a mere employee receiving P200.00 a month only. We think that at the present valuation of the peso, petitioner may have an employment; but he has not a "lucrative" employment. It is true, we have held in some cases that an alien receiving P80.00, P140.00 or P250.00 a month had a lucrative employment; but the applicants therein received free board and lodging. 1 It is also true that we admitted to citizenship persons whose income did not exceed P250.00 or P200.00 a month, with no lodging; however, the applicants therein had no children. 2 At any rate, with the low purchasing power of our currency, a married man with three children to support can hardly make both ends meet, if he makes P200.00 a month only. Therefore, he may not be held to have a lucrative employment.
Decision reversed. Petition for naturalization denied, with costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Mateo Lim v. Republic, 92 Phil., 522; 49 Off. Gaz. No. 1, 122; Tiong v. Republic, 94 Phil., 473; 50 Off. Gaz. No. 3, 1025; Uy Tiao Hong v. Republic, 101 Phil., 77; Off. Gaz. No. 3, 629; Republic v. Yap, L-11187, April 23, 1958.
2. Republic v. Lim, L-3030, Jan. 31, 1951; Pang Kok Hua v. Republic, 91 Phil., 254.
