G.R. No. L-17918. November 28, 1962
TE ENG LING, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Nationalist China. The petition is supported by the affidavits of Estifano
Segovia, a lawyer, and Gloria R. Benedicto, a school teacher.
Petitioner was born in Molo, Iloilo on August 14, 1933 being the son of
Catalino Melliza Te Kutuan and Soledad Lim. He took up his elementary and
secondary courses in the Iloilo Chinese Commercial School wherein he enrolled
under the name of Ramon L. Te and subsequently studied at the University of San
Agustin where he obtained his degree of Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration. Presently, he is employed in the store of the Far Eastern
Furniture and Hardware located at Iznart St., Iloilo City, where he earns P4.00,
a day, free laundry, board and lodging, working six days a week, because on
Sundays the store is closed and he is not paid. On the average, his monthly
earning may be said to be P104.00.
He has no criminal record, nor is he suffering from any contagious desease.
He does not have any tax liability, and has duly complied with his obligation to
the Government in relation thereto. His conduct and relation with Filipinos have
been good and irreproachable. He speaks and writes English as well as the local
dialect. He has evinced a sincere desire to become a Filipino citizen. He has
all the qualifications to be admitted as such and does not have any
disqualification.
The Government opposed the petition based on lack of lucrative or gainful
occupation. It contends that petitioner does not have any real estate worth
P5,000.00, nor any lucrative trade or profession because an average income of
P104.00 a month cannot be considered lucrative within the standard set by the
Supreme Court in several decisions rendered in similar cases. The Government
also opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner has adopted several
names in hid conduct as student or in his dealing with the public.
Notwithstanding the opposition of the Government, the trial court granted the
petition. It ordered that, after the decision has become final and the lapse of
two years as required by law, he be allowed to take the oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen. From this decision, the Government has appealed.
It is undisputed that petitioner does not possess any real estate worth at
least P5,000.00 and that his only source of income is his employment with the
Far Eastern Furniture and Hardware whose store is located in Iloilo City where
he is paid P4.00 a day, or an average salary of P104.00 a month. The Government
has opposed the petition on the main ground that petitioner does not have a
lucrative or gainful occupation within the meaning of the law for in its opinion
one who merely receives,a salary of around P104.00 a month, even if he is given
free laundry, board and lodging, cannot be considered to possess one within the
meaning of the law considering the present high cost of living and the low
purchasing capacity of our currency today.
We find merit in this contention. This is in line with the policy laid down
by this Court in a series of recent decisions one of which is the one rendered
in Velasco vs. Republic of the Philippines, 108 Phil., 234; 58 Off. Gaz. [11]
2154), wherein we held that petitioner’s income of P150.00 a month considering
the high cost of living and the low purchasing value of our peso is neither
lucrative nor substantial to meet the requirement of the law. Another pertinent
case is Swee Din Tan vs. Republic, wherein we said: “We find a sounder reason to
refuse citizenship; no lucrative employment. It is admitted that Swee Din Tan,
with a wife and three children, is a mere employee receiving P200.00 a month
only. We think that at the present valuation of the peso, petitioner may have an
employment; but he has not a ‘lucrative’ employment.”[1]
We also find tenable the contention that petitioner is unworthy to become a
Filipino citizen considering that he has adopted several names in his dealing
with the public. Thus, when he studied in the Chinese Commercial School, were he
took up his secondary course, and later in the University of San Agustin, where
he obtained his degree of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, he
enrolled under the name of Ramon L. Te or Ramon Te, whereas in the petition for
naturalization he filed in the present case which is the one published in the
local newspapers as required by law in order that those who may have any ground
for opposition may be duly informed of his desire to become a Filipino citizen,
he used the name of Te Eng Ling. The use of a different name in the petition for
naturalization can have no other purpose than to confuse and mislead the people
to facilitate its approval and forestall any opposition thereto.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against
petitioner.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] 109 Phil., 287; Uy vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 694;
Tan vs. Republic, L-14861, March 17, 1961; Ong vs. Republic, L-15764, May 19,
1961, Giok vs. Republic, 112 Phil., 986; Palaran vs. Republic, L-15047, January
30, 1962; Cu vs. Republic, L-13341, July 21, 1962; Siong vs. Republic, L-13045,
July 30, 1962; Gui vs. Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962.