EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-24286. April 25, 1968.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF CHUA BOK, CHUA BOK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor- Appellant.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Salvador C. Jacob for appellant. Rolando N. Medalla for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; FAILURE TO STATE IN PETITION FORMER PLACES OF RESIDENCE, FATAL; REASON FOR RULE. — The failure of the petitioner for naturalization to state in his petition the former places of his residence is fatal. The philosophy behind the rule is that information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding.
2. ID.; PETITIONER’S INCOME, NOT LUCRATIVE. — Petitioner stated in his petition that from his occupation as merchant, he derived an average annual income of P4,359.28 in the last three years. His income tax returns show that for 1961, 1962 and 1963, his gross income were P5,623.15, P9,978.10 and P8,291.00 respectively, which do not figure in the assessment of income. His net income for said years were P2,960.47, P7,228.63 and P4,286.95. With three of his four children already studying, and a wife to support, his income does not measure up to the standard of lucrative income.
2. ID.; PETITIONER’S INCOME, NOT LUCRATIVE. — Petitioner stated in his petition that from his occupation as merchant, he derived an average annual income of P4,359.28 in the last three years. His income tax returns show that for 1961, 1962 and 1963, his gross income were P5,623.15, P9,978.10 and P8,291.00 respectively, which do not figure in the assessment of income. His net income for said years were P2,960.47, P7,228.63 and P4,286.95. With three of his four children already studying, and a wife to support, his income does not measure up to the standard of lucrative income.
D E C I S I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
Petitioner, a citizen of the Republic of (Nationalist) China, and a merchant by occupation, filed on June 24, 1963, in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, a petition for naturalization. 1 After due hearing, the trial court granted the petition.
The State appealed. Grounds therefor are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) Failure to state in the petition petitioner’s previous or former places of residence; and
(2) Petitioner’s lack of lucrative trade or occupation.
We find merit in the appeal.
1. The petition merely stated that petitioner’s residence is Sipalay, Negros Occidental. However, his Alien Certificate of Registration (Exh. J) as well as his Immigrant Certificate of Residence (Exh. J-1) and the Alien Certificate of Residence of his wife, Adela Sia (Exh. K), all evidence a previous residence of his at 492 Nueva St., Manila. Petitioner also had taken up residence at the corner of Smith and Taft, Bacolod City, as manifested in the ACR of his children, Jesse (Jesus) Chua and Tessie Chua (Exhs. L & L-1, respectively), Needless to state, such failure to state in the petition the former places of residence is fatal. 2 The philosophy behind the rule requiring recital in the petition of former places of residence is that "information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding." 3
2. We next go into the question of petitioner’s income. His petition for naturalization states that from his occupation as merchant, he "derived an average annual income of P4,359.28 in the last three years." His income tax returns show that for 1961, 1962 and 1963, his gross income were: P5,623.15, P9,978.10 and P8,291.00, respectively. These amounts include bonus and meal allowances, which do not figure in the assessment of income. His net income for said years in the same order were P2,960.47, P7,228.63, and P4,286.95. With three of his four children already studying, and a wife to support, we are constrained to state that his income does not measure up to the standard of lucrative income. 4
For the reasons given, the judgment under review is hereby reversed; and the petition for naturalization of Chua Bok, Petitioner, is hereby denied.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
The State appealed. Grounds therefor are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) Failure to state in the petition petitioner’s previous or former places of residence; and
(2) Petitioner’s lack of lucrative trade or occupation.
We find merit in the appeal.
1. The petition merely stated that petitioner’s residence is Sipalay, Negros Occidental. However, his Alien Certificate of Registration (Exh. J) as well as his Immigrant Certificate of Residence (Exh. J-1) and the Alien Certificate of Residence of his wife, Adela Sia (Exh. K), all evidence a previous residence of his at 492 Nueva St., Manila. Petitioner also had taken up residence at the corner of Smith and Taft, Bacolod City, as manifested in the ACR of his children, Jesse (Jesus) Chua and Tessie Chua (Exhs. L & L-1, respectively), Needless to state, such failure to state in the petition the former places of residence is fatal. 2 The philosophy behind the rule requiring recital in the petition of former places of residence is that "information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding." 3
2. We next go into the question of petitioner’s income. His petition for naturalization states that from his occupation as merchant, he "derived an average annual income of P4,359.28 in the last three years." His income tax returns show that for 1961, 1962 and 1963, his gross income were: P5,623.15, P9,978.10 and P8,291.00, respectively. These amounts include bonus and meal allowances, which do not figure in the assessment of income. His net income for said years in the same order were P2,960.47, P7,228.63, and P4,286.95. With three of his four children already studying, and a wife to support, we are constrained to state that his income does not measure up to the standard of lucrative income. 4
For the reasons given, the judgment under review is hereby reversed; and the petition for naturalization of Chua Bok, Petitioner, is hereby denied.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Civil Case 7021.
2. Burca v. Republic, L-24252, January 30, 1967; Tan Tian v. Republic, L-19899, March 18, 1967; Law Tai v. Republic, L-20623, April 27, 1967; Ong Chian Suy v. Republic, L-21739, May 30, 1967; Chua Eng Go v. Republic, L-21054, July 18, 1967; Ao San v. Republic, L-21128, August 19, 1967; O Ku Phuan v. Republic, L-23406, August 31, 1967; Tan Khe Shing v. Republic L-22390, February 29, 1968.
3. Burca v. Republic, supra, citing cases; Ong Chian Suy v. Republic, supra, citing cases.
4. In the following cases, it was held that the income of applicants with a wife adjudged not lucrative: P5,980.00 with three children, Koa Gui v. Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962; P3,300.00 with one child, Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963; P3,130.00 with four children, Go Bon The v. Republic, L-16813, December 27, 1963; P5,000.00 with four children, Tan Kong Kiat v. Republic, L-19915, June 23, 1965; less than P6,000.00 with three children, Hock Lian v. Republic, L-21197, May 19, 1966; around P6,000.00 with four children, Ty Eng Hua v. Republic, L-20897, May 30, 1967; around P6,000.00 with three children, Ong Chian Suy v. Republic, supra. See also other cases cited in Law Tai v. Republic, supra.
