EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20714. November 24, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, HUI ENG, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Liliano B. Neri for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; INCOME NOT CONSIDERED LUCRATIVE; CASE AT BAR. — According to his own a petition petitioner has an average annual income of P6,000. which is not particularly lucrative for one who, like petitioner herein, is married and has five (5) children, four (4) of them of school age. This become more apparent when we consider the prevailing high cost of living, its tendency to become even higher, and the fact that two (2) of petitioner’s children are of high school age (14 and 12 years in 1962, now 18 and 16 years, respectively).
2. ID.; SENDING OF CHILDREN TO CHINESE SCHOOLS; ITS EFFECT. — Petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace our customs and traditions and to mingle with Filipinos or be assimilated by them socially, he having sent his children of school age to Chinese school — Chiang Kai Shek High School in Manila and Misamis Chinese High School in Ozamis City.
2. ID.; SENDING OF CHILDREN TO CHINESE SCHOOLS; ITS EFFECT. — Petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace our customs and traditions and to mingle with Filipinos or be assimilated by them socially, he having sent his children of school age to Chinese school — Chiang Kai Shek High School in Manila and Misamis Chinese High School in Ozamis City.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
This is an appeal, taken by the Solicitor General, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental granting the petition of appellee Hui Eng for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines.
Upon a review of the record, We find that Hui Eng has no lucrative trade. According to his own petition, he has an average annual income of P6,000 which is not particularly lucrative for one who, like petitioner herein, is married and has five (5) children, four (4) of them of school age. This becomes more apparent when we consider the prevailing high cost of living, its tendency to become even higher, and the fact that two (2) of petitioner’s children are of high school age (14 and 12 years in 1962, now 18 and 16 years, respectively). (Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961; Justo Tan Li Sui v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; Yu Tin v. Republic, L-19844, June 30, 1965; Ong Hock Lian alias Julian Ong v. Republic, L-21197, May 19, 1966.)
At any rate, petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace our customs and traditions and to mingle with the Filipinos or be assimilated by them socially, he having sent his children of school age to Chinese Schools — Chiang Kai Shek High School in Manila and Misamis Chinese High School in Ozamis City (Ong Ching Guan v. Republic, L-15691, March 27, 1961; Garchitorena v. Republic, L-15102, April 20,1961; Sy See v. Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962; Haw Su Siong & Ramon Cuenco v. Republic, L-15819, September 29, 1962; Harry Ong Ping Seng v. Republic L-19575, February 25, 1965; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; Li Tong Pek v. Republic, L-20912, November 29, 1965; Lim Yuen v. Republic, L-21218, December 24, 1965; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed and appellee’s petition for naturalization dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Upon a review of the record, We find that Hui Eng has no lucrative trade. According to his own petition, he has an average annual income of P6,000 which is not particularly lucrative for one who, like petitioner herein, is married and has five (5) children, four (4) of them of school age. This becomes more apparent when we consider the prevailing high cost of living, its tendency to become even higher, and the fact that two (2) of petitioner’s children are of high school age (14 and 12 years in 1962, now 18 and 16 years, respectively). (Keng Giok v. Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961; Justo Tan Li Sui v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; Yu Tin v. Republic, L-19844, June 30, 1965; Ong Hock Lian alias Julian Ong v. Republic, L-21197, May 19, 1966.)
At any rate, petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace our customs and traditions and to mingle with the Filipinos or be assimilated by them socially, he having sent his children of school age to Chinese Schools — Chiang Kai Shek High School in Manila and Misamis Chinese High School in Ozamis City (Ong Ching Guan v. Republic, L-15691, March 27, 1961; Garchitorena v. Republic, L-15102, April 20,1961; Sy See v. Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962; Haw Su Siong & Ramon Cuenco v. Republic, L-15819, September 29, 1962; Harry Ong Ping Seng v. Republic L-19575, February 25, 1965; Uy Ching Ho v. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; Li Tong Pek v. Republic, L-20912, November 29, 1965; Lim Yuen v. Republic, L-21218, December 24, 1965; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966).
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed and appellee’s petition for naturalization dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
