IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SIMEON CHUAH TAK SENG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. SIMEON CHUAH TAK SENG, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,…

On July 13, 1959, petitioner
filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Manila
alleging, among other things, that his name is Simeon Chuah Tak Seng; that he was born in the City of Manila on June 19,
1938 of Chinese parents; that he is single, and an employee with average annual
income of P2,300.00, more or less; that he can speak and write English and Tagalog; and that he had completed his elementary and
secondary education In schools recognized by the Government. In short, he
averred that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided for by law.

After the requisite publication,
trial was held, and on October 20,
1960, the
lower court granted the petition subject to petitioner’s compliance with the
provisions of Republic Act 530. No appeal was interposed from said
decision.

On November 26, 1962, petitioner
filed with the same court his petition to take the oath of citizenship, stating
that during the intervening two-year period after the decision was rendered he
had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed by Section 1 of Republic Act 530. On
April 23,
1963, the
court a quo issued an order denying the petition, the pertinent portions of
which read as follows:

“It appears, however, from the
records of the case that, aside from the name Simeon Chuah Tak Seng, the petitioner was also known as Simeon Chua while he
was studying in the elementary grades at the San Beda
College (Exhibit F) and as Simeon S. Chua while he was taking up his high school
course at the University of Sto.
Tomas High
School (Exhibit F-1). “The names Simeon
Chua and Simeon S. Chua do not appear in the petition for naturalization, nor in the publication of the notice of the filing of said
petition. Such omission, to the mind of the Court, constitutes a serious
impediment to the validity of these proceedings and to the grant of the petition for naturalization. x x x x

“Even granting that the
petitioner only used the names Simeon Chua and Simeon S. Chua in school, the
omission of such names in the petition and in the publication adversely affects
the validity of these proceedings and granting of the petition for
naturalization. Needless to say, while studying, the petitioner could have
committed certain act or acts which may disqualify him from becoming a Filipino
citizen. x x x The
publication of the filing of the present petition in the name only of Simeon
Chuah Tak Seng does not afford sufficient notice of the filing of the
petition and is misleading to the public. It is, therefore, the opinion of this
Court that, in the light of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the Yu
Seco case, the omission of the names Simeon Chua and
Simeon S. Chua in the petition as well as in the publication of the notice of
the filing thereof invalidates and vitiates the entire proceedings in this
case.”

Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration and rehearing contending that since the name published was
Simeon Chuah Tak Seng, his true name, and that the other two which he used in
school (Simeon Chua and Simeon S. Chua) were included in the first, the public
was sufficiently apprised of his application and identity, hence the Yu Seco case can not be cited as authority against his
petition. This motion having been denied, petitioner appealed to this
Court.

We find no merit in the appeal.
Petitioner admits that while he was enrolled at the San Beda College he adopted the name Simeon Chua, and in his
high school days at the University of Santo
Tomas he used the name Simeon S. Chua,
allegedly for the convenience of his teachers. However, when he filed his
petition for naturalization he did not reveal all the names by which he had been
known, so in the publication of his petition for
naturalization only the name Simeon Chuah Tak Seng appeared. We believe that
notwithstanding the contention of petitioner to the contrary, the non-inclusion
of his other names in the publication of the petition is fatal, for it has
deprived persons who knew him by those names, to come forward and inform the
authorities of any legal objection which might adversely affect his application
for citizenship. In other words, the publication being incomplete and
insufficient, the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the
case.^[1]

Thus, in the
case of Lee Ng Len v. Republic, G. R. No. L-20151, March 31,
1965,
which is on all fours with the case at bar, We declared:

“The trial court also overlooked
petitioner’s failure or refusal to disclose in the petition that petitioner was
also known by the names of ‘Allen N. Lee’ and ‘Allen Ng Lee’, as shown in his
school certificates, leading to the publication of his petition under the name
of ‘Lee Ng Len’, exclusively, that being the sole-appellation revealed in the
petition. As ruled in Yu Seco vs. Republic, L-13441,
June 30,
1960,
failure to disclose the other names alternatively used by the petitioner taints
the publication of his application, and warrants
reversal.”

Again, in the
case of Alexander Lim Uy v. Republic, G. R.
No. L-19916,
June 23,
1965,
this Court said:

“We believe that it has been
shown that the appellee Alexander Lim Uy in the present case is also known by the name of
Alejandro Lim Uy. It appearing that in the petition
for naturalization as well as in the notice of hearing it was not stated that
the petitioner Alexander Lim Uy is also known as
Alejandro Lim Uy alias Alexander Lim Uy x x x
We believe that one vital requirement of the law had not been complied with, and
this circumstance has rendered invalid the proceedings had in the court below.
This Court in a long line of decisions ruled that the failure on the part of the
petitioner to state in his petition for naturalization all the names by which he
is known constitutes a fatal defect of the petition and is a sufficient ground
to deny the petition. (Yu Seco vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-13441, June 30,
1960; Kwan Kwock How vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-18521,
Jan. 30,
1964; Ong
Khan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19709, Sept. 30,
1964; Go
vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-20558, March 31,
1965.”

Another reason that may be
advanced to justify the denial of the petition is that petitioner does not have
a lucrative trade or profession. It should be noted that in his petition for
naturalization he stated that he is single and an employee with an average
salary of P2,300.00 per annum, although in his
testimony he added that he did not have to pay for his board and lodging.
Considering the several decisions of this Court wherein We held that an
applicant who is single and who receives a monthly salary of P200.00 or
P2,400.00 annually, excluding board and lodging,^[2] or P250.00 a month, which
is equivalent to P3,000.00 yearly, also free from board and lodging,^[3] cannot be said to have a
lucrative trade or occupation that would warrant the grant of his petition for
naturalization, it follows that the income of herein petitioner would not
qualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is
affirmed. The petition for naturalization is denied, with costs against
petitioner-appellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon J. P., Sanchez
and Ruiz
Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1] Saw Cen v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20310,
April 30,
1965; Ang
Tee Yee v. Republic, G.R. No. L-29305,
March 31,
1965, citing Celestino Co v. Republic, 55 0. G., 9224, and
Ong Khan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19709, September 30,
1964; Republic v. Reyes, G.R.
No. L-20602,
December 24,
1965.

^[2] Chuan v. Republic, G.R. No.
L-18550. February 28,
1964; Chua v. Republic, G.R.
No. L-19695, October 31,
1964; Yap v. Republic, G.R.
No. L-19649,
April 30,
1965.

^[3] Uy v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-20799, November 29,
1965.