IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, JAMES UY, ALSO KNOWN AS UY KHE KHUN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITO…

Appeal taken by James Uy,
also known
as Uy Khe Khun, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in
Civil Case No. 47168 denying his application for naturalization.

It appears that on May 29, 1961, appellant, a citizen of
Nationalist China, filed a petition for naturalization with the above-named
court alleging:  that he was born on
September 20, 1939, in the City of Manila; that he was single and had resided
continuously in the Philippines for a term of fifteen years at least,
immediately preceding the date of the petition, and particularly in the City of
Manila for a
period of one year immediately prior thereto; that his trade or occupation was
that of an employee
from which
he derived a monthly salary of P180.00, aside from the amount of
P16,600.00 worth of capital stock of Uy Su Bin and
Co., Inc., which he had inherited from
his deceased father and from which he has been receiving annually cash
dividends in the amount of P1,660.00 since 1953, plus a cash deposit or savings of P10,000.00; that he was exempt
from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention for having been born
in the Philippines and had received his primary and secondary education at the
De La Salle College, a private educational school recognized by the
Government, and not limited to any race or nationality; and, finally, that he
possessed all the qualifications necessary to become a Filipino citizen and
none of the disqualifications provided
by law.

Notice of hearing of the application having been published, the
Solicitor General filed his opposition thereto. 
After trial, the court rendered the appealed judgment.

We find the appeal to be
without merit.

The lower court denied appellant’s application mainly on the
following grounds:  that appellant does
not have a lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; that there was no
sufficient evidence as to his
irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines,
and lastly, that he had been using an alias without proper authority.

On the question of lucrative profession or occupation, the best
that appellant could prove was that a month
prior to the filing of his application he was employed by Uy
Su Bin and Co. at a monthly salary of P180.00. 
This the lower court did not believe because the record showed that the
alleged employer firm belonged to or was
controlled by appellant’s family and relatives, the president and
manager thereof being his uncle.  These
circumstances, together with the fact that he was allegedly employed only one
month before the filing of his application for naturalization led the trial
court to conclude “that the supposed employment of petitioner is a mere convenient arrangement
planned out to show a token compliance with the requirement of the Revised
Naturalization Law to the effect that a petitioner for naturalization must have
a lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation.  The petitioner’s so called employment is merely fictitious.” Nothing in
appellant’s brief suffices to show that this conclusion arrived at by the trial
court is unfounded.

Moreover, even on the basis of appellant’s own claim regarding
his salary as employee and the dividends earned by his shares of stock in Uy Su Bin and Co., he can not be said to be engaged in a
lucrative profession, considering that in the case of Keng
Giok (L-13347, August 31, 1961) We held that an
annual income of P8, 687.50 is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the
law on income.

On the question of appellant’s having used an alias without
lawful authority, We find the trial court’s con­clusion
well founded.  In this connection, the
evidence shows that on page 13 of the Stock and Transfer Book (Exhibit E),
appellant’s name appears as “Uy James alias Uy Khe Khun“;
that this same alias for appellant appears in a certificate of stock issued to
him on February 25, 1941 (page 62, record on appeal).  Appellant’s contention that it was his mother
who caused these names to be entered in the book and document just mentioned does
not help him any, because these documents show that among members of his own
family he was known not only as James Uy but also as
“Uy Khe Khun“.  This is
sufficient basis for the conclusion arrived at by the trial court on this
matter.

In view of the conclusions We have
arrived at, as set forth above, We deem it unnecessary to consider other
questions raised in the appeal.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.