IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN TIAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES TAN TIAN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal, by the Solicitor General, from a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Sur,
declaring appelee Tan Tian
entitled to acquire Philippine citizenship upon fulfillment of the requirements
of Republic Act No. 530.  Said decision
is assailed upon the ground:  (1) that appellee has not stated in his petition his former places
of residence; (2) that he has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace the
customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos; and (3) that he does not have
a lucrative trade, profession or occupation.

It appears that the only place of residence men­tioned in appellee’s application for naturalization is Candon, Ilocos Sur, his present residence. 
He did not state any of his former places of residence, although he,
evidently, re­sided elsewhere in the Philippines,
before 1946, when his do­micile in Candon was
established.  Indeed, his marriage certi­ficate
shows that he resided in Tubao, La Union, at the time
of his wedding, on August 20, 1940.  Again, his daughter Maria was born in Bauguen, Ilocos Sur, while his children, Mariano and Manuel, were born in Panangaan, Mountain
Province.  What is more, he must have, also, resided,
for a while, in Manila, for when he
came to the Philippines
from China, in 1927, he disembarked in the port
of Manila.  Failure to allege in the application his former paces of residence has
repeatedly been held fatal thereto.^[1]

Moreover, four of appellee’s children,
namely, Fredy, Jose, Loreto and Chita,
are enrolled at the Ilocos Sur
Chinese School, in Candon; whereas, two other
children, namely, Oscar and Nena, are studying in the
La Union Chinese School, in San Fernando, La Union,
and his eldest daughter, Maria, had finished her secondary course at the Chiang Kai Shek High School, in Manila.  It is well settled that such enrollment in
Chinese schools, the bulk of whose students are Chinese, for whom the
institutions are primarily in­tended, negates a sincere desire to embrace the
customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipino people.^[2]

Lastly,
although petitioner testified that he is a duly licensed tobacco
dealer and owns the Kian Huat
Bazaar in Candon, Ilocos Sur, and that his total assets amount to P75,000.00, and his gross receipts for 1960 aggregated P464,­358.88,
his income tax returns for 1958, 1959 and 1960 dis­close that his net incomes
for these years were P10,510.54, P9,922.37 and P8,774.20, respectively.  Considering that ap­pellee
has eleven (11) children, nine of whom are schooling, his aforementioned income
can hardly be considered lucrative in view of the high and increasing cost of
living in the Philippines.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should
be, as it is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered dismissing appellee’s petition for naturalization, with costs against
him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Ong Tai vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-19418, December 23, 1964; Go vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-20558, March 21, 1965; Lee Ng Lea vs. Re­public, G.R. No. L-20151, March 31, 1965; Tan Nga Kok vs. Republic, G.R.
No. L-16767, June 30, 1965;
Yu An Kiong vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-21333, Jan. 31, 1966; Koa Heng vs. Republic, G.R. No.
L-21079, February 28, 1966
and Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-22207, May 30, 1966.

^[2]
Li Tong Pek vs. Republic, G.R.
No. L-20912, November 29, 1965; Chan Kiat Huat
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-19479, February 28, 1966 and Lim Yuen vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-21218, December 24, 1965.

^[3]
Tan King Book vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20712, February 28, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-19479, February 28, 1966; Ong Tai vs. Republic, G.R. No.
L-19418, December 23, 1964.