IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES OF JAO KING YOG, JAO KING YOG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
in civil case 783 (Jao King Yog,
petitioner vs. Republic of the Philippines,
Government-oppositor) granting the peti­tion for
naturalization.

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen born on March 1, 1923 in Amoy,
China, of Chinese parents, came to the Phi­lippines on September 27, 1936, and
since then has been in continuous residence in Cebu,
save for a six-month so­journ in his birthplace with his mother and sisters,
and brief visits in 1956 and 1957 to Hongkong where
his wife whom he married in 1947 has resided up to the present.  The couple are
childless.  He speaks and writes English
and the Cebu-Visayan dialect.  He has been employed from 1953 in the Sin Hing department store in Cebu City,
receiving from 1961 to 1963 an annual salary of P3,600,
which was increased to P4,800 in 1964, with free board and lodging, plus a
Christmas bonus of P1,200 in 1963.  He
paid income taxes for the years 1961, 1962 and 1963.

On September 7, 1960
he officially declared his in­tention to become a Filipino citizen; he filed
the present petition on March 16, 1964.  The court a quo granted his
petition on January 4, 1965.

The Government’s appeal is meritorious.

1.      Section 2 of Commonwealth Act 473 requires that an applicant for
naturalization “must be of good moral charac­ter * * * and must have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his re­sidence in the Philippines
in his relation with the con­stituted government as well as with the community
in which he is living.” The testimony of his character witnesses, namely,
Jose B. Delfin and Vicente Panique,
that he is law-abiding, an asset to the department store where he works, and a
credit to the community where he lives, falls short of this requirement.  Delfin became
acquainted with the pe­titioner only in 1951, and, therefore, is not in a
position to attest to the quality of the latter’s conduct during his entire
period of residence in Cebu
City.  As a matter of facts Delfin’s
acquaintance with the petitioner is so sketchy that when asked, “Do you know if
he (petitioner) has children with, his wife”, he answered, “Yes, sir,
he has a child with her; that is what I heard from
her.” The fact is that the couple are
childless.  And while the other character
witness, Vicente Panique, claims to have known the
petitioner since 1937, their acquaintance is superficial, derived purely from
the witness’ business dealings with the department store (where the peti­tioner
is employed) which sells the products of Muller & Phipps, Ltd., of which
firm the witness is an agent.

2.      The petitioner does not have a lucrative or gainful employment.  He earned P15,600
during the period from 1961 to 1964 (plus a Christmas bonus of P1,200^[1]
in 1963), or an ave­rage annual income of P3,900, or an average monthly income
of P325.  If he will bring his wife to
the Philippines,
as he intends to once his petition for naturalization is finally granted, he
will have to support her and the children they may have in the future.  Clearly, his income will be insufficient to
meet the bare necessities of life, considering the present high cost of living
and the low purchasing power of the peso.

With the view that we take of this case, we do not deem it
profitable to pass upon the other issues raised in this appeal.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo of January 4, 1965 is reversed and set
aside, and the petition of Jao King Yog is denied, at his cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Jp., Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] A
bonus is not a part of lucrative income (Ho Ngo vs. Re­public, L-24335,
Nov. 18, 1967, and the cases cited therein).