IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  JESUS SY DY ALIAS DESIONG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal,
taken by the Solicitor General, from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu granting the petition, of appellee Jesus Sy Dy alias Desiong, for
naturalization as citizen of the Philippines.

Appellant maintains that
the lower court erred in not denying said petition for naturalization upon the
grounds hereinafter discussed, which We find to be
well taken.  In this connection, the
record shows, inter alia, the
following:

1.  The appellee had not filed a declaration of his intention to
apply for naturalization, which is a condition precedent therefor.^[1]
Although he claims to be exempt from the requirement of filing said
declaration, upon the ground of birth in the Philippines,
this fact alone is insufficient to entitle him to the exemption.  Under the law, the petitioner must have,
moreover, received his “primary and secondary education in public
schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality x x x.”^[2]
It has been repeatedly held that, pursuant to this provision, to avail of said
exemption, the applicant for naturalization must have completed or finished
his primary and secondary education in said schools.1 Upon the
other hand, herein appellee was merely a third year
high school student when he took the witness stand, in May, 1965, so that he
must have been in the second year high school at the time of the filing of his
petition on August 14, 1964.  Hence, the lower court did not even have
jurisdiction to entertain the petition herein.2

2.  Appellee
had not secured, from the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of China,
the permission, required by its laws, to renounce his Chinese citizenship and
thus divest himself thereof.3 Inasmuch
as he cannot become a citizen of the Philippines
by naturalization without a valid renunciation of the allegiance he owes to his
country,4 it follows that his petition for naturalization
cannot be granted.5 Otherwise, he would owe
allegiance to China,
despite his Philippine citizenship, if conferred upon him, which is contrary to
the letter and spirit of our Naturalization Laws.

3.  Appellee
has no lucrative trade or profession, his gross income for the year 1964,
combined with that of his wife, being merely P4,300.00.  Considering
that they, likewise, have a child,1 it is clear that said income is far from
being lucrative and that appel­lee lacks,
accordingly, one of the requisite qualifications for naturalization as citizen
of the Philippines.2

The Solicitor General points out other flaws in the evidence for appellee herein, but those already adverted to suffice to
show that the lower court has committed a reversible error in granting the
petition for naturalization of herein appellee.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered denying the petition for
naturalization of appellee Jesus Sy
Dy, alias Desiong, and
dismissing the case at bar, with costs against said appellee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, Fernando, and
Teehankee, JJ., in the result.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Sec. 5, Com. Act No. 473.

^[2]
Sec. 6, Com. Act No. 473, as amended by Com. Act No. 535.

1 Uy Boco v. Republica, 85
Phil. 320, 322-323; Son v. Republica, 87 Phil.
666; De la Cruz v. Republic, 92 Phil. 714, 716; Dy
v. Republica, 92 Phil. 782, 784-785; Tan v.
Republic, 94 Phil. 882, 883-884; Guy Co Chia v.
Republic, L-17917, April 30, 1964; Lee Ng Len v. Republic, L-20151,
March 31, 1965; Sia v. Republic, L-20290, Aug.
31, 1965; Uy Chin Hong v. Republic, L-21219,
May 20, 1966; Po Chu King v. Republic,
L-20810, May 16, 1967; Ng v. Republic, L-26242, Oct. 25, 1968; Luchayco v. Republic, L-25814, July 30, 1969.

2 Uy Yap
v. Republic, L-4270, May 8, 1952; Sy Ang Hoc v. Republic, L-12400, March 29, 1961; Law
Tai @ Vicente Lo v. Republic, L-20623, April 27, 1967; Pessumal Bhrojraj v.
Republic, L-24023, May 8, 1969; Luchayco, Cesar v.
Republic, L-25814, July 30, 1969; De la Cruz v. Republic, 92 Phil. 714,
716-717; Ong Khan v. Republic, 109 Phil. 855.
See, also, Yap v. Republic, L-12938, July 31, 1961; Dy,
Antonio v. Republic, L-20348, Dec. 24, 1965; Sio
Kim @ John Dia v. Republic, L-20415, Dec. 29,
1965; Lim v. Republic, L-20804, Jan. 22, 1966; Lim Cho
Kuan v. Republic, L-21198, Jan. 22, 1966; Yu v.
Republic, 92 Phil. 804-805.

3 See Exh.
M.

4 Sec. 12, Com. Act No. 473.

5 Go A. Leng v. Republic, L-19836, June 28,
1965; Oh Hek How v. Republic, L-27429, Aug. 27,
1969.

1 In Chua Lian
v. Republic, L-26416, April 25,
1969, and Tan v. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963, yearly incomes of P6,000 and P6,300, respectively, were held insufficient to be
lucrative for one who has a wife and a child. In Yu Kian
Chie v. Republic, L-20169, Feb.
26, 1965, P400 a month or P4,800 a year
was not considered lucrative for a childless married man.

2 Sec. 2, subdivision (4) of Com.
Act No. 473.