LEONCIO YU LIM, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

In this appeal from a grant of citizenship by the Court of First Instance
of Surigao del Norte, in its Naturalization Case No.
41, unto the petitioner, Leoncio Yu Lim, the oppositor-appellant, Republic of the Philippines, seeks a
reversal of the trial court’s decision on the grounds of insufficient income
of, and unauthorized use of alias by, the said petitioner and the absence of
evi­dence of his belief in the principles underlying the Constitution.  We sustain the oppositor-appellant
on all grounds.

The petitioner-appellee filed his
petition for naturalization with the court a quo, on 29 January
1963, alleging, inter alia, that he is
single and was born on 23 October 1931 in Surigao, Surigao del Norte; that he is a general merchant and the
proprietor of Southern Bazar in the said municipality
from which he derives an average annual income of P3,398.03; and that he is a
”co-owner” and assistant manager of Pan Pacific Remnant Industry, a
partnership with offices and factory in Quezon City
and from which he derives an annual salary of P1,440.00.

At the trial, the government appeared and cross-examined the
witnesses for the petitioner, but presented no evidence.  On 5
March 1964, the court rendered judgment granting the petitioner’s
application for natural­ization.  The oppositor government appealed.

In its decision, the trial court found that the applicant, Leoncio Yu Lim, earns a total of P4,833.00
a year, which amount is about the same as that alleged in the petition, which
is P4,838.03.  The court went on to state
that in the year 1962 he earned P6,633.00 because he is allowed an exemption of
P1,800.00 in his income tax, for being single, and this latter sum is at his
disposal, and concluded that the petitioner’s income more than meets the
requirements of the naturalization law.

A perusal of the record discloses that the alleged salary of
P120.00 a month (or P1,440.00 a year) from the Pan
Pacific Remnant Industry rests solely on the petitioner’s testimony as a
witness in his own behalf.  No other
witness corroborated this testimony nor was any document presented to prove the alleged salary. 
Hence, said salary cannot be considered in the determination of his
income (Yap v. Republic, L-19832, 23 August 1966, 17 S. C. R. A. 956), more so
because the partnership, Pan Pacific Remnant Industry, was registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission only on 13 July 1962 (Exhibit
“1-2”) and has not declared any dividend (Decision, Record on Appeal,
page 15).  Furthermore, the said
partnership has its offices in Quezon
City, while the alleged assistant manager, petitioner
herein, is domiciled in Surigao, Surigao
del Norte, a plain inconsistency that has been left
unexplained.

With the alleged salary as assistant manager not proved, the
computation of the oppositor government of the
petitioner’s average annual income to be only P2,043.59 is correct:  P1,006.76 for 1958, P846.51 for 1959,
P2,923.07 for 1960 and P3,398.03 for 1962 (no income tax return for 1961 was
shown).  Such income, amounting to an
average of P172.00 a month, does not satisfy the re­quirement of the
naturalization law that the applicant should have a lucrative trade or
occupation.  In Dy
v. Republic, L-20348, 24 December
1965; Uy v. Re­public, L-20208, 30 June 1965; and Kock
Tee Yap v. Republic, L-20992, 14 May
1966, 17 S. C. R. A., 16, this Court has already ruled that an
income of P300.00 a month is inadequate, even if the applicant were unmarried.

The computation by the trial court of the petitioner’s alleged
income in 1962, as amounting to P6,633.00, is
erroneous.  This figure was arrived at by
adding the exemption of P1,800.00, for being single,
plus the unproved salary of P1,440.00, to the net income of P3,398.00.  The sum of P1,800.00 is not addi­tional
income or earning of the taxpayer, and not at his disposal, as the trial
court entertained it to be, but an exemption deductible from the net
income (from Schedule K in the tax return) for determining the amount of
taxable income.

The petitioner-appellee disclaims the
use of the alias “Dodong“, claiming the
same to be only his nickname; but his disclaimer is belied by the very do­cuments
that he adduced.  These documents plainly
indicate the name “Dodong” as an alias
of the petitioner, not as his nickname, and are official certificates secured
from various government agencies and offices (Exhibits “N”,
“O”, “S”, “S-2”, “S-4”,
“S-6”, “S-8”, “S-10” and “T-3”).  No evidence has been adduced that his use of
the alias had been legally authorized, nor was the
alias mentioned in the petition for naturalization.

Finally, the applicant and his witness simply asserted in court
that the former “believes in the principles of the Constitution”
without giving any particulars nor specifying the
basis for the conclusion.  We deem that
mere naked statements of belief, without facts in support thereof, are neither
com­petent nor adequate proof that the petitioner does in
truth believe in the prin­ciples of the Philippine Constitution; nor is such
belief established by the simple absence of derogatory information.  The burden of duly proving the truth of the
allegations in the petition lies on the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, and
the petition for naturalization ordered dismissed.  Costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and
Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.