IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES; ESPIRITU NG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the
Solicitor General’s office from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila granting the application for Filipino citizenship of the petitioner-appellee, Espiritu
Ng.

On June 3, 1959, Espiritu Ng filed with the above-named court a petition for
naturalization. Among others, he claimed that he was a resident of No. 2089
Invernes St., Sta. Ana, Manila and that he had been
residing therein for more than a year prior to the filing of the petition; that
he was born in Manila of Chinese parents on October 26, 1938; that he was single
and then employed at the Pioneer Tobacco Corporation as a supervisor with a
monthly salary of P170.00; that he could speak and write English and Tagalog; that he had gone through the elementary and
intermediate schools as well as the high school course (Technical and Commercial
College of Baguio) and, at the time of the filing of
the petition, was a third year Commerce student of the University of the East.
The petitioner also declared that he believed in the Principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution and that he has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in his dealings with the authorities as well as with the community
in which he lives. Finally, the petitioner claimed that he had mingled socially
with the Filipinos and had evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos.

At the hearing, the petitioner
and his character witnesses testified to the above allegations. Thereafter, the
Government, thru the Solicitor General’s office, opposed the petition on four
grounds, to wit: 1) that the petitioner’s character witnesses were untrusworthy; 2) that the said witnesses were in no position
to vouch for his ‘citizenship qualifications; 3) that petitioner’s occupation or
income was not lucrative within the meaning of the
Naturalization Law; and 4) that the petitioner was illegally using an
alias.

In due time,
the lower court granted the petition and ruled out the Government’s opposition
thereto as “unmeritorious”. Hence, the instant
appeal.

In this appeal, the Solicitor
General interposes more or less the same grounds as above. He questions the
reliability of the petitioner’s character witnesses, the sufficiency of His
income and, in addition, calls the attention of this Court to the fact that
petitioner had failed to set out in the petition all his former places of
residence.

Without passing on the other
objections of the Government, this Court believes that this appeal is
meritorious as the records do show that petitioner does not have the lucrative
occupation or income contemplated by law. By his own admission, petitioner’s
income is just a little over P2,040.00 annually. Of
course, he claims that aside from his salary, he is also provided with some food
by his employer. Be that as it may, however, although the evidence that he is
also given food aside from his salary is inconclusive, We still believe that the petitioner’s income is grossly
insufficient to justify the grant of citizenship to him. Considering that he
resides in Manila where the standard of living is one of the highest in the
whole country, there can be no question that his income is, far from being
lucrative, not enough even for his basic needs.

Already, this decision has been
liberal to the petitioner because we have taken into account petitioner’s own
claim that his salary is P170.00 a month. For, according to his membership card
at the Social Security System, his salary was only P150.00 a month. Had this
been the income that we considered, then he would have been charged with a far
lesser income than that which we consider insufficient
already.

In the case of Ngo Go Liong Siu vs. Republic,
No. L-18319, May 31,
1963,
We denied the petitioner’s application for citizenship
because his proven monthly income was only P300.00. If this amount which is
practically twice the income of the applicant in this case could be deemed
sufficient, We simply do not see how the application at
bar can be justified.

In passing, it may also be stated
that the herein petitioner does not seem to have declared in his petition all
his places of residence prior to its filing. Nowhere in the said petition may
his Baguio residence be found, although he
himself testified at the hearing of this case that lie
resided there for some five years. Moreover, one of the character witnesses
admitted that he never met petitioner in Baguio during
his alleged five years’ stay in said city. This failure is a violation of the
law that cannot be overlooked since the disclosure of all previous residences of
the petitioner affords the Government fuller and more reliable basis for
determining his fitness or disqualification to become a Filipino citizen (Sec.
7, Revised Naturalization Law; Ngo Liong vs. Republic,
supra.)

With our findings above, it is
not necessary any more to discuss the other errors
assigned.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
hereby reversed, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C, J., Bautista Angela, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.