IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROSAURO JOSE TIONG ALSO KNOWN AS JOSE CHUA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ROSAURO JOSE TIONG ALSO KNOWN AS JOSE CHUA, PETITIONER A…

Tiong versus Republic

The Case

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from a decision of a trial court granting the petition for naturalization of Rosauro Jose Tiong, also known as Jose Chua. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, assigns a single principal error: that the applicant failed to prove he holds a lucrative income, as the law requires of anyone seeking Philippine citizenship. The case matters because it shows the Supreme Court enforcing that income requirement with what it calls undeviating rigidity, refusing to let sympathy for a hardworking applicant dilute a statutory command.

Procedural History

Tiong filed a petition for naturalization in the trial court. On January 28, 1971, that court granted the petition. The Republic appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as principal error the lower court's finding that the applicant had complied with the legal requirement of a lucrative income. The Supreme Court reversed.

Facts

Rosauro Jose Tiong, also known as Jose Chua, was born on October 8, 1943 in Paco, Manila. He formerly resided at Herran Street in Paco, Manila, and later moved to San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in 1965, where he established his residence. He is single and a citizen of the Republic of China. He studied up to third year high school at the Mapua Institute of Technology in Manila.

At the time of his petition, Tiong was employed as a salesman at the San Jose Trading Store in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, with an annual salary of 3,000 pesos. Out of that income, he gave his parents 150 pesos once every two months.

Despite an annual income of only 3,000 pesos, the trial court granted his application on January 28, 1971. The Republic appealed, contending that he had failed to show compliance with the legal requirement of a lucrative income.

Issues

• Whether or not an applicant for naturalization with an annual income of 3,000 pesos, or 250 pesos a month, possesses the lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation required by law.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition for naturalization despite the applicant's failure to meet that income requirement.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph 4 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, provides:

He must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.

This is the requirement the Court measures the applicant's 3,000 peso annual salary against, and which the Court holds he fails to satisfy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant does not possess a lucrative occupation within the meaning of the law. It adopted the definition of lucrative employment from Tan versus Republic, quoted with approval in Lim Biak Chiao versus Republic:

It means a gainful employment. It is not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one's becoming the object of charity or a public charge.

The Court noted that under this standard, applicants earning 8,687.50 pesos with five children, 5,980 pesos with three children, 6,300 pesos with one child, and 7,133.29 pesos with four children were all denied citizenship. It also invoked the refinement in Watt versus Republic, speaking through Chief Justice Concepcion:

It is not enough for an applicant for naturalization not to be a financial burden upon the community. He must, also, have a lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. And this qualification has been construed to mean, not only that he is not a beggar, a pauper or indigent, but, also, that his financial condition must be such as to permit him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court erred. Considering the high cost of living, it could not see how an applicant earning 250 pesos a month, who to his credit still shared some of it with his parents, could manage to come within the strict statutory requirement. Sympathy for the applicant could not justify glossing over a failure to adhere strictly to what the law commands.

Doctrine

The requirement of a lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation under Section 2, paragraph 4 of Commonwealth Act Number 473 is strict. It does not mean merely that the applicant is not a beggar, a pauper, or a public charge. The income must yield an appreciable margin over expenses, sufficient to support the applicant and his family in reasonable comfort according to the prevailing standard of living and the demands of human dignity, and to sustain them through unemployment, sickness, or disability without becoming a public charge. Courts may not dilute this requirement out of sympathy for the applicant.

Disposition

The Republic won. The Court reversed and set aside the trial court's decision of January 28, 1971, and dismissed the petition for naturalization, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the Tan definition: a lucrative occupation must give an appreciable margin over expenses, enough to survive unemployment, sickness, or disability without becoming a public charge. Examiners use this case to test the strict income requirement for naturalization, often by giving a modest monthly salary and asking whether the petition should be granted.