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, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Sadang & Sagrada Law Office for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; LUCRATIVE INCOME; EARNINGS OF P6,000.00 PER ANNUM NOT SUFFICIENT. — An applicant who earns an average annual income of P6,000.00 from his store and supports five children does not meet the requirement of a lucrative trade, profession or occupation.
D E C I S I O N
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.
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.
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.
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 P6,300 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 lone is already married). Clearly, he fails 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.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization hereby denied, without costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., took no part.
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.
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.
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 P6,300 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 lone is already married). Clearly, he fails 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.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization hereby denied, without costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., took no part.
