IN RE PETITION FOR ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. UY ENG HIOK TILIAS FORTUNATO UY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

MAKALINTAL, J.:

Uy Eng Hiok alias Portunato Uy appeals from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu denying his petition for naturalization.

Born in Amoy, China on September 2, 1931, appellant came to the Philippines
on January 8, 1938 and later was baptized Fortunato Uy in the Roman Catholic
church of Dalaguete, Cebu. Since his arrival he has been residing in Dalaguete.
He finished his primary and intermediate courses in the Dalaguete Elementary
School and reached second year high school in the Anunciacion Institute of the
same town he is single and, according to his testimony, works with his father as
an associate and age in the latter’s general merchandise, lumber, and copra
business, for which he receives a monthly salary of P140.00.

Appellant challenges the findings of the trial court (1) that he was
absolutely required under Section 5 of the Naturalization law to mention in his
declaration of intention as welt in his testimony the name of the boat on which
he came to the country from Amoy, China; (2) that there is no sufficient
evidence that he has none of the disqualifications to become a citizen; (3) that
he failed to prove that the country of which he is a citizen is not at war with
the Philippines or that the private school where he studied is not limited to
any particular race or nationality; (4) that he did not prove that he has not
filed any other petition for naturalization; (5) that he does not have
sufficient knowledge of and prolicioncy in English; and (6) that he has not
proven the truth and sufficiency of his means of livelihood. This last finding
of the lower court suffices as a ground for the denial of the petition.

Appellant’s monthly income of P140.00 assuming it to be true, does not
satisfy the legal requirement that an applicant for naturalization must have a
lucrative occupation. In many cases recently decided by this Court, it has been
held that monthly salaries of even as much as P200.00 are not adequate for that
purpose, considering the present low purchasing power of our money. Furthermore,
the evidence of appellant’s employment is not satisfactory. It consists only of
his own testimony, and while his witnesses also testified on the iwint they did
so not on their personal knowledge, but from what they learned from appellant
himself.

It should be noted that although asked to do so by the lower court, appellant
failed to present the payroll in his father’s business from which it could be
determined whether or not he was really an employee therein, as he alleged.

In a naturalization case the applicant has the burden of proving by competent
ami satisfactory evidence that he has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications stated in the law (Yap vs. Republic, L-13944, March
30, 1962; Kho Eng Pac vs. Republic, L-17146, July 20, 1962; Cu vs.
Republic L-13341, July 21, 1962; Hao Su Siong vs. Republic, L-13045,
July 30, 1962).

Appellant’s failure to attach his certificate of arrival to his declaration
of intention, as required by the 1939 Rules and Regulations of the Department of
Justice (Yang Nang vs. Republic, L-17013, May 30, 1962); the express
finding of the lower court, which saw and heard him testify, that he does not
possess sufficient knowledge of English; the absence of evidence that
appellant’s petition was duly published in the Official Gazette; and his use of
an alias, “Hioga”, without proof that the same is an authorized exception under
the Anti-Alias Law all these are additional grounds which justify the denial of
appellant’s petition.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ. concur.