IN RE: PETITION TO BE ADMITTED FILIPINO CITIZEN TAN TE BUNTIONG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Appeal taken by the Republic of the Philippines from the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Davao in Civil Case No. 206 admitting
Tan Te Buntiong, a chinese national, to Philippine citizenship.

On March 6, 1961, appellee filed a petition for naturalization with
the above-named court alleging: that he was born in Davao City on
January 12, 1927; that since birth, he had continuously resided at
Toril, Davao City, together with his wife, Ong No Ning, also a Chinese
subject, born in Daliao of the same city, and their five minor
children, two of whom were enrolled at the Davao Chinese High School
(the petition is silent as to whether said school was recognized by the
government and not limited to any race or nationality and where
Philippine History, Government and Civics are taught or prescribed as
part of the school curriculum); that he was a merchant by profession
engaged in the business of buying rice and corn and native products
from which he derived an annual income of at least P6,000.00; that he
possessed all the qualifications necessary to become a Filipino citizen
and none of the disqualifications. Attached to the petition were the
affidavits of character witnesses, Bayani D. Claudio and Bias Cunanan,
wherein they alleged that they personally knew appellee since 1947 and
that, in their opinion, the latter had all the necessary qualifications
to become a citizen of the Philippines and none of the
disqualifications provided by law.

After due publication and hearing of the petition, the Court rendered the appealed judgment.

Upon the evidence of record, the appealed decision must be reversed.

According to appellee himself, his annual net income derived from
the business of buying rice and corn and other native products can not
be more than an average of P7,000.00 a year. Considering that this
alleged income is contingent and dependent upon different factors that
affect appellee’s business, and considering furthermore that appellee
has a wife and five children to support, it is our opinion that he can
not be said to be engaged in a lucrative business in accordance with
our previous decisions on the subject.

Moreover, the testimony of Bayani Claudio, one of appellee’s
character witnesses, is not sufficient to show that he knew the latter
well enough to be able to vouch for his fitness for citizenship, as
said witness testified that he did not know if appellee had ever been
convicted of any crime or if he was a polygamist, and that he only thought that appellee believed in the principles of the Philippine Constitution.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is reversed and the application for citizenship filed by appellee is hereby dismissed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Makalintal, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., on leave.