EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-19647. April 29, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BENEDICTO TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. BENEDICTO TAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor J. H. Lantin, for petitioner and Appellant.
Pedro O. Fabre for petitioner and appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; REQUIREMENT; EMPLOYMENT; PETITIONER WHO IS NOT LUCRATIVELY EMPLOYED DISQUALIFIED. — An applicant for naturalization whose total income, including meal allowances and overtime pay, amounts to P2,500.00 has no lucrative income and is disqualified to be a naturalized Filipino.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
Benedicto Tan, 21, single, was granted naturalization by the Quezon court of first instance, over the objection of the provincial fiscal. So, this appeal was interposed in due time.
And now, the Solicitor-General alleges that said court erred: (a) in finding it has jurisdiction over the case; (b) in finding that the petitioner had observed an irreproachable conduct; (c) in not declaring that petitioner had no lucrative occupation; and (d) in believing the character witnesses presented in support or the petition.
We find it unnecessary to pass on all the assigned errors. We see that petitioner has no lucrative employment, and therefore, he is disqualified from becoming a Filipino citizen. It is admitted that his total income, "including meal allowances and overtime pay, amounts to more or less P2,500.00 per annum" (p. 15, brief of appellee).
In the light of our recent decisions, such annual income disqualifies the applicant for Filipino citizenship.
1. Uy v. Republic, L-20208, June 30, 1965. An applicant having an income of P3,600 per annum, though unmarried, does not have a "lucrative" occupation.
2. Uy v. Republic, L-20799, November 29, 1965. Applicant for naturalization earning P250.00 per month, does not have a "lucrative" income.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, and this application for naturalization denied, with costs.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
And now, the Solicitor-General alleges that said court erred: (a) in finding it has jurisdiction over the case; (b) in finding that the petitioner had observed an irreproachable conduct; (c) in not declaring that petitioner had no lucrative occupation; and (d) in believing the character witnesses presented in support or the petition.
We find it unnecessary to pass on all the assigned errors. We see that petitioner has no lucrative employment, and therefore, he is disqualified from becoming a Filipino citizen. It is admitted that his total income, "including meal allowances and overtime pay, amounts to more or less P2,500.00 per annum" (p. 15, brief of appellee).
In the light of our recent decisions, such annual income disqualifies the applicant for Filipino citizenship.
1. Uy v. Republic, L-20208, June 30, 1965. An applicant having an income of P3,600 per annum, though unmarried, does not have a "lucrative" occupation.
2. Uy v. Republic, L-20799, November 29, 1965. Applicant for naturalization earning P250.00 per month, does not have a "lucrative" income.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, and this application for naturalization denied, with costs.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
