EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-22207. May 30, 1966.]
In the Matter of the petition of Nerio Tan, also known as Nerio (Bing) Tan, to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. NERIO TAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Mariano G. Nuera and Perfecto V. Galido for Petitioner-Appellant.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General F. R. Rosete and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason, for Oppositor-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; RESIDENCE CONTEMPLATED IN NATURALIZATION LAW. — The residence contemplated in Section 7 of the Naturalization Law encompasses all places where petitioner actually and physically resided. (Qua v. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964.) Cebu City where petitioner studied for three years comes within the compass of the term residence. And this because "information regarding petitioner and objections to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding." (Qua v. Republic, supra.)
2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO ALLEGE FORMER PLACE OF RESIDENCE. — Failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal. (Chang v. Republic, L- 20713, April 29, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966; Republic v. Reyes, Et Al., L-20602, December 24, 1965. citing cases.)
3. ID.; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OPEN TO SCRUTINY. — Naturalization proceedings involve public interest. In consequence, the entire record thereof is open to scrutiny. (Kwan Kwock How v. Republic, L-18521, January 30, 1964; Tio Tek Chai v. Republic, L-19112, October 30, 1964; Cheng v. Republic, L-20013, March 30, 1965; Lee Ng Len v. Republic, L-20151, March 31, 1965; Lee v. Republic, L-20148, April 30, 1965.)
4. ID.; LUCRATIVE INCOME REQUIREMENT. — By judicial standards an income of P2,400.00 a year - for a petitioner who is single - is below the level of the lucrative.
5. ID.; ID.; COMMISSION NOT INCLUDED IN RECKONING INCOME. — Commission does not figure in reckoning income because it is contingent and speculative. (Ong Tai v. Republic, L-19418, December 23, 1964.)
2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO ALLEGE FORMER PLACE OF RESIDENCE. — Failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal. (Chang v. Republic, L- 20713, April 29, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966; Republic v. Reyes, Et Al., L-20602, December 24, 1965. citing cases.)
3. ID.; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OPEN TO SCRUTINY. — Naturalization proceedings involve public interest. In consequence, the entire record thereof is open to scrutiny. (Kwan Kwock How v. Republic, L-18521, January 30, 1964; Tio Tek Chai v. Republic, L-19112, October 30, 1964; Cheng v. Republic, L-20013, March 30, 1965; Lee Ng Len v. Republic, L-20151, March 31, 1965; Lee v. Republic, L-20148, April 30, 1965.)
4. ID.; LUCRATIVE INCOME REQUIREMENT. — By judicial standards an income of P2,400.00 a year - for a petitioner who is single - is below the level of the lucrative.
5. ID.; ID.; COMMISSION NOT INCLUDED IN RECKONING INCOME. — Commission does not figure in reckoning income because it is contingent and speculative. (Ong Tai v. Republic, L-19418, December 23, 1964.)
D E C I S I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
Application for naturalization. The judgment below was adverse to petitioner. He appealed.
1. Amongst the grounds relied upon in the judgment under review is that petitioner failed to state in his petition a former place of residence — Cebu City.
Petitioner’s application for naturalization named his present place of residence as Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. No mention was made of any other place of residence. Concededly, however, he also stayed in Cebu City. For, he completed a one-year course for radio mechanic in March 1958 and a two-year course for radio operator ending March 1960 — in Cebu City.
Section 7 of the 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. 1 Cebu City where petitioner studied for three years perforce comes within the compass of the term residence. And this, because "information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding." 2 Failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal. 3
2. Naturalization proceedings involve public interest. In consequence, the entire record thereof is open to scrutiny. 4 We take a look at petitioner’s income.
At the time of his application for naturalization, petitioner’s known income 5 was an annual salary of P2,400.00 plus P600.00 commission. 6 But commission does not figure in reckoning income. Because it is contingent, speculative. 7
By judicial standards an income of P2,400.00 a year — for a petitioner who is single is below the level of the lucrative. Reason: The high cost of living and the low purchasing power of money.
We find it unnecessary to dwell on the other points discussed in the briefs.
Judgment affirmed. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.
Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
1. Amongst the grounds relied upon in the judgment under review is that petitioner failed to state in his petition a former place of residence — Cebu City.
Petitioner’s application for naturalization named his present place of residence as Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. No mention was made of any other place of residence. Concededly, however, he also stayed in Cebu City. For, he completed a one-year course for radio mechanic in March 1958 and a two-year course for radio operator ending March 1960 — in Cebu City.
Section 7 of the 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. 1 Cebu City where petitioner studied for three years perforce comes within the compass of the term residence. And this, because "information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding." 2 Failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal. 3
2. Naturalization proceedings involve public interest. In consequence, the entire record thereof is open to scrutiny. 4 We take a look at petitioner’s income.
At the time of his application for naturalization, petitioner’s known income 5 was an annual salary of P2,400.00 plus P600.00 commission. 6 But commission does not figure in reckoning income. Because it is contingent, speculative. 7
By judicial standards an income of P2,400.00 a year — for a petitioner who is single is below the level of the lucrative. Reason: The high cost of living and the low purchasing power of money.
We find it unnecessary to dwell on the other points discussed in the briefs.
Judgment affirmed. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.
Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Qua v. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964.
2. Id.
3. Chang v. Republic, L-20713, April 29, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966; Republic v. Reyes, Et Al., L- 20602, December 24, 1965, citing cases.
4. Kwan Kwock v. Republic. L-18521, January 30, 1964; Tio Tek Chai v. Republic, L-19112, October 30, 1964; Cheng v. Republic, L- 20013, March 30, 1965; Lee Ng Len v. Republic, 20151, March 31, 1965; Lee v. Republic, L-20148, April 30, 1965.
5. For purposes of the Naturalization Law, the income to be considered is that which petitioner had at the time of the filing of the petition. Ong Kim Kong v. Republic L-20505. February 28, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, supra; Lee v. Republic, supra; Dy v. Republic, L-20348, December 24, 1965; Dy Ong v. Republic, L-21017, November 29, 1965; Sia v. Republic, L-20290, August 31, 1965; Ong Tai v. Republic, L-19418, December 23, 1964.
6. Record on Appeal, p. 2.
7. Ong Tai v. Republic, supra; Tochip v. Republic, L-19637, February 26, 1965; Ong So v. Republic, L-20145, June 30, 1965.
