IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG CHIONG @ CHARLES ONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, ONG CHIONG @ CHARLES ONG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPP…

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its civil case
62710, granting the petition for naturalization of Ong
Chiong alias Charles Ong.

The petitioner who was born in Amoy,
China on August 16, 1932, was admitted into
the Philippines
on October 27, 1934.  He is married to Anita Sy,
with whom he has six children.  He is
exempt from filing a declaration of intention because he had been continuously
residing in the Philippines
for more than thirty years.  He is a
graduate of the Mapua Institute of Technology with
the degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. He has been
employed with the United Neon Light Company since 1963.

The Republic seeks the reversal of the judgment a quo,
on four grounds, namely: (1) that the petitioner’s use of the alias
“Charles Ong” without judicial authority
disqualifies him from naturalization; (2) that the failure of the petitioner to
state in his petition his second alias, “Charles T. Ong,” is fatal to his appli­cation; (3) that the
petitioner does not have a lucrative income and (4) that the petitioner’s
character witness Alfonso Reyes is not in a position to vouch for the
qualifications of the petitioner for naturalization.

For the purpose of resolving this appeal, we need dwell only on
one of the grounds for reversal offered by the Republic.  The petitioner has a wife and six
children.  According to his in­come tax
return for 1963, the following items constituted his in­come for that year:

Salary as employee
of United Neon

Light
Co. ————————————    P
4,800.00

Bonus from United
Neon Light Co. ———–        2,000.00

Private tutoring (this was later

revealed
by petitioner as earnings

of his wife) ———————————-        1,972.00

Total 
———————–   P
8,772.00

In his income tax return for 1964, the following items appear:

Salary from United
Neon Light Co. ——-     P  4,800.00

Commission and bonus
——————–          6,000.00

Tutoring (by the
wife) ————————          1,000.00

Total
——————-     P11,800.00

His income tax return for 1965 shows the following:

Salary from United
Neon Light Co. ———  P 5,543.32

Bonus from United
Neon Light Co. ———     2,000.00

Commission – do –                                          6,262.50

Tutoring
——————————————-     1,500.00

Total
——————–    P15,305.82

Established is the rule that neither bonus nor commission is
taken into account in assessing the lucrativeness of
the income of an applicant for naturalization because these items are contingent,
unreliable, unstable, undependable (Nilda Tse vs. Republic, L-19642,
Nov. 9, 1964; Ong So vs. Republic, L-20145, June 30,
1965).  The item, “tutoring” by
the wife of petitioner, likewise cannot be considered in determining whether
the husband-applicant for naturalization has sufficient income in contemplation
of the Revised Naturalization Law (Tanpa Ong vs. Republic, L-20605, June 30, 1966).  Therefore, for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965,
only his salaries of P4,800, P4,800 and P5,543.32, respectively, may be taken
into account (after subtracting therefrom the
corresponding taxes, if any)

The petitioner has a wife and six growing children to maintain
and educate.  Obviously, his income cannot
adequately provide for the decent needs of his family.  In Uy Ching Ho vs. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965, this Court held that an income of
P7,799.30 a year is not lucrative where a petitioner
has a wife and five children to maintain. 
With more reason, therefore, do we hold that the income of the
petitioner in the present case is far from being lucrative. 

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed,
and the present petition for naturalization is her dismissed, at petitioner’s
cost. 

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.