EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-19845. February 26, 1965.]
In the matter of the petition for Philippine citizenship. NESTORA EUFRACIA SONG SIONG HAY UY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Ceferino T. Ong and Simplicio J. Apao for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; LUCRATIVE TRADE; INCOME OF P120 MONTHLY WITH FREE BOARD AND LODGING NOT SUFFICIENT. — Considering the increase in the cost of living, a monthly income of P120, even with free board and lodging, is patently insufficient to be considered lucrative for purposes of naturalization.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the Solicitor General from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, granting the application for naturalization of petitioner-appellee, Nestora Eufracia Song Siong Hay Uy. Appellant relies upon several grounds of which only one need be taken up for the disposition of the appeal. We refer to the question whether or not petitioner may be considered as having a lucrative trade or occupation.
It is not disputed that she earns no more than P1,440.00 a year or P120.00 a month. Even if coupled with free board and lodging, such income is patently insufficient to be considered lucrative for purposes of naturalization. Although in 1953 we declared that a monthly salary of P80.00, plus board and lodging, sufficed for said purpose (Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-4588, January 28, 1953), subsequent decisions, taking into account the considerable increase in the cost of living, have, in effect, reversed the aforementioned ruling (Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964; Koh Chet v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17223, June 30, 1964; Quinga Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19695, October 31, 1964; Tse v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19642, November 9, 1964; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18242, December 24, 1963; Ong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15764, May 19, 1961).
WHEREFORE, without passing upon the other questions raised in the appeal, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and appellee’s petition dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
It is not disputed that she earns no more than P1,440.00 a year or P120.00 a month. Even if coupled with free board and lodging, such income is patently insufficient to be considered lucrative for purposes of naturalization. Although in 1953 we declared that a monthly salary of P80.00, plus board and lodging, sufficed for said purpose (Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-4588, January 28, 1953), subsequent decisions, taking into account the considerable increase in the cost of living, have, in effect, reversed the aforementioned ruling (Ong Ling Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550, February 28, 1964; Koh Chet v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17223, June 30, 1964; Quinga Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19695, October 31, 1964; Tse v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19642, November 9, 1964; Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18242, December 24, 1963; Ong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15764, May 19, 1961).
WHEREFORE, without passing upon the other questions raised in the appeal, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and appellee’s petition dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
