Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19268 June 23, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG CHUAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.
ONG CHUAN, petitioner and appellant,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellee.
Enrique Jimenez for, petitioner and appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz Assistant Solicitor General F. Villamor and Solicitor D. Ocampo for oppositor and appellee.
DIZON, J.:
Appeal taken by Ong Chuan from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 44139 denying his petition for admission as a citizen of the Philippines on the ground that the evidence did not show that he had a lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; nor that he had conducted himself in a proper an irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines; nor that Ambrosio Villalon, one of his two character witnesses, was a credible witness.
On September 6, 1960, appellant filed a petition for naturalization with the above-named court alleging: that he, a subject of Nationalist China, was born on April 13, 1918 in Chingkang China, and came to the Philippines in March 1930 on board the SS "Susana"; that he had lived in the City of Manila ever since; that at the time when he filed his petition he was residing at 386. Dasmariñas, Manila with his wife, Virginia Sy Arriola, and their five children all of whom were enrolled in schools recognized by the Government, where Philippine history, civics and government are taught as part of the prescribed curriculum; that he was a merchant by profession and derived a net annual income from his business of P5,000.00, more or less; that he was able to read and write Tagalog and English; that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in this court in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he lived; that he had mingled socially with the Filipinos and had evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, ideals and traditions of the Filipinos; that it was his intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce forever his allegiance to the Nationalist Government of China; that he was not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized government; neither did he defend or teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of men's ideas; that he was not a polygamist nor a believer in polygamy, nor was he suffering from any incurable contagious disease or mental alienation; that he possessed all the qualifications required under Section 2, and none of the disqualifications under Section 4, of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
Attached to the petition for naturalization was joint affidavit of Ambrosio Villalon and Catalino Dionisio, residing at 2994 Tramo, Pasay City, and No. 23 Blumentritt, San Juan, Rizal. respectively, wherein they stated that they had personally known appellant for more than fifteen years and that to their knowledge he had resided in the Philippines continuously for more than 30 years, and in the City of Manila for more than 15 years immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and that they had known appellant to possess all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and none of the disqualifications.1äwphï1.ñët
After the requisite publication and hearing, the Court, on September 28, 1961, rendered the appealed judgment.
We find this appeal to be without merit, for we have repeatedly held that an annual net income of P5,000.00 does not show that the petitioner has a lucrative business or occupation (Keng Giok vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13347, August 31, 1961 and other cases); more particularly in this case where appellant's own evidence shows that his income for the years 1957 to 1960 were a little over P5,000.00, P1,400.00, P2,000.00 and P4,000.00, respectively.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. With costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
