IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.  LAW TAI ALIAS VICENTE LO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

On January 14, 1961,
Law Tai alias Vicente Lo and christened Vicente Sandiko
Lo,^[1] a
citizen of the Republic of China,^[2]
filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Romblon.^[3]

On March 24, 1962,
after trial, the lower court rendered judgment declaring petitioner eligible to
Philippine citizenship.  The State
appealed.

Petitioner was born in Amoy, China
on May 17, 1923.  He arrived in Manila
on October 4, 1930, by
boat.  After less than a month in Manila,
he went to Laoag, llocos
Norte, where he resided for a period of “[l]ess
than two years.”

In 1932 he returned to Amoy, China
to visit his parents.  He was away for
“[l]ess than four months.” When he came
back, he stayed in Manila for about
two months, then proceeded to Bacolod, Negros
Occidental.  Some four or five years
later, after liberation, he moved to Romblon, Romblon, his present place of
residence.  After “two or three
years” from the date of his arrival in Romblon,
he started to serve as purser on board the ship “General Del Pilar.”

The record further discloses petitioner’s two more travels
abroad:  again to Amoy
in 1948 with his wife, to pay the respects to his parents; and a sojourn in Hongkong to visit an old sister of his.

Petitioner married Salvacion T. Cerdeña, a Filipina, on May 12, 1948.^[4]
The couple have six (6) children – all minors.

A merchant, he started business in 1950, under the name of Adventure
Supply.  At the time of the filing of
the petition he had an annual income of P5,499.58.^[5]

On three grounds, the State’s appeal should be upheld.

1.  From petitioner’s arrival
in the Philippines
(October 4, 1930) to the filing of his petition (January 14, 1961), a period of
30 years, 3 months and 10 days elapsed. 
Petitioner did not file a declaration of intention as required by the
Naturalization Law.  He claims exemption
thereof.^[6]
The Solicitor General challenges this position, draws attention to
jurisprudential doctrine that residence, as here understood, contemplates
“actual and substantial,” not legal residence alone.  Reason for this is that “only by actual
and substantial residence may the said qualification be acquired by an
applicant.”^[7]

But petitioner cites authorities – meant to establish an
exception – that short absences do not interrupt continuity of residence as a
prerequisite for exemption in filing a declaration of intention.^[8]

Petitioner’s position suffers from infirmity.  His first trip to Amoy
for less than four months in 1932 may well be termed a short visit which could
bring the case within the coverage of Ting vs. Republic, footnote 8.  But, with reference to the second trip to Amoy
and the third trip to Hongkong, the record is barren
as to the duration of each.  We are hard
put to categorize these two trips.  We
cannot simply assume, as petitioner suggests, that these trips are for short
duration.  That would be guesswork.

Incumbent upon petitioner is to demonstrate – given the fact of
absences from the country – that those absences were compatible with con­tinuous
residence.  Failing in this and short of
it, his case must fail.

For, he has not discharged his burden.^[9]

And without the required declaration of intention, the court a
quo did not acquire jurisdiction to entertain his petition.^[10]
The petition herein should not have been entertained.

2.  Petitioner’s application
lists his residence as Romblon, Romblon.^[11]
He did not state any other place of residence. 
But, he resided in Laoag, Ilocos
Norte, for a period of less than 2 years, and in Bacolod, Negros
Occidental, for 4 or 5 years.  Without
question, Laoag and Bacolod are former places of
residence.  Long has jurisprudence
stabilized the rule that failure to state former places of residence is fatal
to a naturalization petition.^[12]

3.  Petitioner’s annual
income at the time of the filing of his petition is P5,499.58.^[13]
With six children and a wife to support, and considering the high cost of
living and the low purchasing power of money, this income does not rise to the
level of the lucrative.^[14]

For the reasons given,
the judgment under review is reversed, and the petition for naturalization
dismissed.  Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

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

Castro, J., took no part.

^[1]
Exhibit S.

^[2]
Exhibit Q.

^[3]
Naturalization Case No. 23.

^[4]
Exhibit R.

^[5]
Exhibit GGG.

^[6]
Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended
by Commonwealth Act 535, in part, provides: 
“Persons born in the Philippines x x x and who have resided continuously in the Philippines for
a period of thirty years or more before filing their application may be
naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying
with the other requirements of this Act.”

^[7] Dy vs. Republic, 92 Phil. 278, 280-281.  See also:  Sy See vs.
Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962;
Tan vs. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963. 
Guy Co Chia vs. Republic, L-17917, April 30, 1964; See Yek Tek vs. Republic,
L-19898, June 28, 1965; Yao Long vs. Republic,
L-20910, November 27, 1965.

^[8]
Ting vs. Republic, 101 Phil. 1038, 1040, citing Tio
Liok vs. Republic, L-4545, October 29, 1952.

^[9] Rule 131, Section 1, Rules of Court.

^[10] Ong Khan vs. Republic, L-14866, October 28, 1960; Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic, L-12400, March 29, 1961.

^[11] R.A.,
p. 1.

^[12]
Chang vs. Republic, L-20713, April
29, 1966; Tan vs. Republic, L-22207, May 30, 1966, citing cases.

^[13] Exhibit GGG, supra.

^[14]
In the following cases, the annual income of married applicants failed
to pass the “lucrative” test: 
P8,687.50, with five children, Keng Giok vs.
Republic, L-13347, August 31, 1961; P5,980.00, with three children, Koa Gui vs. Republic, L-13717, July 31, 1962; P6,300.00,
with one child, Tan vs. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963; P7,133.29,
with four children, Go Bon The vs. Republic, L-16813, December 27, 1963;
P5,000.00, with five children, Tio Tek Chai vs. Republic,
L-19112, October 30, 1964; P8,067.24, with five children, Yap Bun Pin, L-19577,
October 30, 1964; P5,000.00, with four children, Tan Kiong
Kiat, L-19915, June 23, 1965; P6,660.00, with five
children, Yu Tiu vs. Republic, L-19844, June
30, 1965; P7,799.34, with five children, Uy Ching Ho vs. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; and
P6,000.00, with six children, Wong Kim Goon vs. Republic, L-20373,
December 24, 1965.