FELIPE TOCHIP, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is a petition for
naturalization filed by Felipe Tochip before the Court
of First Instance of Samar. On January 13,
1962, a
decision was rendered granting the petition subject to the two-year limitation
provided for by law. The government took the present
appeal.

Petitioner is a citizen of the
Republic of China. He was born in Catbalogan,
Samar on July
25, 1933.
He is registered as an alien in the Bureau of Immigration for which he was
issued an alien certificate of registration. He is single. He finished high
school in the Philippine Chinese School in Manila and had studied up to the third
year of mechanical engineering in the Cebu Institute
of Technology. Except during the period of occupation and the time he studied in
Manila and Cebu, petitioner has continuously
resided since his birth in the Municipality of Catbalogan.

Petitioner is the purchasing
agent of Go Bontad Agency and underwriter of the
Agricultural Surety and Insurance Company from which he derived an income of
P3,240.00 in the year 1960. On said income he paid a
tax in the amount of P33.48. He can speak and write Chinese, English and
Samar dialect.

Cesario Singson, a former Justice of the Peace of Catbalogan, Samar declared that he
knew petitioner since birth; that lie was the one who solemnized the marriage of
his parents; that petitioner has conducted himself during his entire residence
in the Philippines in an exemplary manner; and that he has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino
citizen.

Rafael Tan, an assistant property
clerk of the Bureau of Public Highways, testified that he knew petitioner since
his birth and, according to his observation, petitioner has conducted himself as
a person of good moral character during his entire stay in the Philippines, and
that, in ill is opinion, petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen.

The main objection set up by the
Government, to the competency of petitioner to become a Filipino citizen is his
failure to prove that he has a lucrative occupation to entitle him to such
citizenship. Indeed, even if we consider that petitioner is single and has no
family to support yet the income he has reported is insufficient as to make him
economically qualified to be a Filipino citizen. Thus, the record shows that
petitioner was merely a purchasing agent of Go Bontad
Agency and an underwriter of the Agricultural Surety and Insurance Company from
which he reported an income of P3,240.00 in the year 1960, but from his own
testimony it become apparent that his annual salary as such agent only amounted
to P1,800.00. In fact, this is what appears in his income tax return for 1960
wherein his employer appeared to be one To Chip-Ford Dealer. And even assuming
that in 1960 the income he derived from his occupation was P3,240.00, this only
goes to show that in that year he earned that much, but in other years he earned
a lesser amount. He may contend that occasionally he earns substantial
commissions as underwriter of the Agricultural Surety and Insurance Company so
much to that in 1961 his gross income from this source reached a total of
P5,525.22. But such source is so speculative or
precarious that can hardly give him a lucrative occupation within the meaning of
the law.

It further appears that
petitioner took up his secondary education in a Philippine Chinese School in
Manila which argues against his sincere desire to embrace the customs and
traditions of the Filipino citizen or against what our law requires that he
should mingle socially with the Filipinos, for he could have taken up his
initial education in a school owned or run by Filipino citizens. Philippine
citizenship is a privilege that should not easily be given away. It should be
accorded only to one who evinces a true and sincere desire to embrace such
citizenship. Petitioner falls short of this requirement.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court
a quo is hereby reversed.
Costs against appellee.

Bengzon, C. J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.