IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. GELACIO LO CHICOMBING, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELL…

The Solicitor General appeals from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Norte (in Nat. Case No. 24), admitting to
Philippine citizenship petitioner Gelacio Lo Chicombing, on the ground
that petitioner lacks the qualifications required of an applicant for
Philippine citizenship in that he has no properties nor known lucrative
occupation.

It appears that in his sworn statement for
naturalization filed on November 23, 1957, petitioner alleged that “his
trade or occupation is a medical student (sic) in the University of the
Philippines”. Likewise, in his declaration of intention, also under
oath, dated October 16, 1956, he stated his occupation as a medical
student. Yet, during the hearing held on October 22, 1958, he
testified, over the objection of the assistant provincial fiscal for
lack of allegations in the petition, that as purchasing agent of his
brother Ricardo Chicombing and of one Ong Chiao, both of Daet, he
received a monthly salary of P80.00 and P40.00, respectively (a total
of P120.00 monthly). He claimed that he had some savings from the
monthly allowance given him by his parents and that since April 7,
1958, he was engaged in the dried fish business, capitalized at
P4,000.00.

Upon this evidence and finding that the applicant
has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided
by law, the trial court declared petitioner entitled to be admitted as
citizen of the Philippines.

The Solicitor General’s appeal
from this decision is well taken. Even admitting petitioner’s testimony
at its-face value, it would appear that petitioner earns only P120.00 a
month as purchasing agent of his brother Ricardo Chicombing and Ong
Chiao. His dried fish (um-buyan) business said to be capitalized at
P4,000.00 has a quarterly gross sales of P1,154.40 (Exhs. G and G-1).
There is no evidence as to petitioner’s monthly net earnings from said
business. Moreover, there is no proof as to how and where he obtained
the capital of P4,000.00, considering that his monthly earning since 2
years prior to the hearing of the petition was only the aforesaid sum
of P120.00. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion and so hold
that petitioner has no known lucrative lawful occupation required under
Section 2 (4) of the Revised Naturalization Law as to entitle him for
admission to Philippine citizenship.

With this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary for us to deal with the other issues raised.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and
petitioner’s petition for naturalization dismissed, with costs against
the petitioner. So ordered.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.