G.R. No. L-22372




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-22372 March 31, 1967 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION OF CHUA TEK alias "SENANDO TAN". CHUA TEK alias SENANDO TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant. Filemon O. Juntareal for petitioner-appellee. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Appeal, taken by the Government, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, granting the petition for naturalization of appellee Chua Tek, alias Senando Tan. Appellant maintains that said decision should be reversed because appellee has neither a lucrative income nor a good moral character; because his petition is fatally defective; because he has not satisfactorily established that he believes in the principles underlying the Constitution; and because he has not filed a declaration of intention, although not exempt therefrom. The appeal is well taken. Appellee testified that his annual income is P6,000, although in his income tax returns for 1959 and 1960 he reported a net income of P3,701.36 and P5,191.31, respectively, and in both cases he claimed exemption from said tax upon the ground that his personal exemptions exceeded his net income. But, even if the latter were P6,000 annually, the same is insufficient to characterize him as having a lucrative profession, occupation or calling, considering that he has a wife and seven (7) children, two (2) of them, at that time¹— now, all of them — of school age, and the high cost of living.² Moreover, appellee's petition shows that he uses an alias, namely, Senando Tan. Apart from this, the record shows that he has actually used the following other names, or aliases, namely: Sisenando Tan Chua Tek in his 1961 Residence Certificate A; Chua Tek Tan, in his income tax returns for 1959 and 1960; Sisenando Nadres, in his marriage certificate Exhibit J; and Sisenando Nadres Tan, as well as Sisenando Tan, in a number of other documents (see Exhibits L and L-1 to L-5). Yet he does not appear have secured the requisite judicial authority, in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142.³ Again, two of his children, namely, Rosa and Concepcion, were enrolled in the Tayabas Sun Yat Sen School which , manifestly, is mainly intended for Chinese or children of Chinese descent, although, during the pendency of this case in the lower court, he caused them to be transfer to a public school, in an effort, evidently, to evade the unfavorable implications of their former enrollment in said Chinese school. At any rate, he had already evinced thereby the absence of a sincere desire to embrace the customs and traditions of the Filipinos.⁴ Without passing upon the other points raised by the appellant, it is clear, therefore, that the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed, and another one rendered dismissing the herein petition for naturalization, with costs against appellee Chua Tek. It is so ordered.1äwphï1.ñët Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez and Castro, concur. Dizon, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part. Footnotes ¹In 1960. ²Keng Giok vs. Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961; Lao Cui vs. Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962; Justo Tan vs. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963. ³Ko Bok vs. Republic, L-21452, April 29, 1966; Lee Tit alias Sia Khuy vs. Republic, L-21446, April 29, 1966; Wayne Chang alias Wong Lian vs. Republic, L-240713, April 29, 1966. ⁴Lim Yuen vs. Republic, L-21218, December 24, 1965. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation