G.R. No. L-17316. November 29, 1962
UY CHIN HUA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Republic of China. The petition is supported by tke affidavits of Carlos P.
Benares, a lawyer, and Vicente G. Ereñeta, a chemical engineer.
Uy Chin Hua was born in Ebe, China on July 15, 1923 having come to the
Philippines on December 18, 1928. He took up his primary, intermediate and
secondary courses in the Iloilo City High School and studied engineering for one
year in the Iloilo City College where Philippine history and civics are taught
as part of its curriculum. He is married to Felisa Dy with whom he has four
children two of whom are of school age and are studying at the Hua Ming Catholic
School which is recognized by our Government and where civics, Philippine
history and government are taught. He is employed as assistant manager in the
Richoco Products the office of which is situated in Bacolod City owned and
operated by his mother where he receives a monthly salary of P145.00. He has
invested in said enterprise a capital of P7,320.00 and owns some shares of stock
of the Acoje Oil and White Eagle Oversea Company worth P2,000.00. He speaks and
writes English and the local dialect He believes in the principles underlying
our Constitution and is not opposed to organized government nor affiliated with
any group of persons who uphold the use of violence in the propagation of their
social, political or religious ideas. He is not a polygamist, nor has he been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. He is not suffering from any
contagious disease. He has conducted himself in a proper manner during the
period of his residence in this country. He has religiously filed his annual
income tax since 1948 and has helped in raising funds for charitable
purposes.
On the strength of the above facts, the trial court granted the petition for
naturalization. It ordered that after the lapse of two years from the
promulgation of its order, and after proper hearing, pursuant to Republic Act
No. 580, petitioner be allowed to take the oath of allegiance and be issued the
corresponding certificate of naturalization.
The Government has appealed.
One of the qualifications required by law to become a citizen of the
Philippines by naturalization is that petitioner must own real estate in the
Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00 or he must have a known lucrative
trade, profession, or lawful occupation. The Government contends that petitioner
does not possess this qualification because he has not shown that he possesses a
lucrative profession or a gainful occupation for the reason that he does not own
any real estate in the Philippines and his only source of income is his
employment in the Richoco Products Company where he receives a monthly salary of
P145.00. The Government claims that such monthly income is insufficient to give
petitioner an occupation that may be considered lucrative within the meaning of
the law considering that he has four children and our cost of living is high
while the purchasing capacity of our currency is low.
We agree with this contention; This is in line with the policy laid down by
this Court in a series of recent decisions rendered in similar cases one of
which is Te Eng Ling vs. Republic of thePhilippines, G. R. No. L-17918,[1] wherein we said that one who earns an
average monthly salary of P104.00, free laundry, board and lodging, even if he
is single, cannot be considered as having a lucrative occupation considering the
present high cost of living and the low purchasing capacity of our currency. In
Velasco vs. Republic, we also 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 or substantial to meet the requirement of the law.[2] 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.” (109 Phil., 287).
.On the other hand, Vicente G. Ereñeta proved to be not qualified as a
character witness for, according to him, he came to know petitioner during the
Japanese occupation but has not had regular association with him except only in
the later part of 1948 when they used to play basketball and there is nothing to
show regarding their association from 1948 up to the date he testified in this
case.
This faulty knowledge of Ereñeta as regards the conduct of petitioner can be
gleaned from his testimony that the children of petitioner were enrolled in
Philippine Schools when in fact they were enrolled in the Hua Ming School which
is a Chinese school where Chinese children are predominant.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against
petitioner.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] Promulgated November, 1962.
[2] 108 Phil., 234; 58 Off. Gaz., (11) 2154.