IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BONIFACIO SY @ SY KIM TAH TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND A…

On May 25, 1961, Bonifacio Sy alias Sy Kim Tah filed a petition
for naturalization with the above-named court alleging:  that he was born on June 5, 1924 in Jaro,
Leyte, of China parentage; that he had lived in the Philippines since birth and
particularly in the City of Cebu from 1936; that he was married to Zoila T. Po,
also a Chinese national born in Cebu City on June 27, 1928; that they (the
spouses) and their six children were residing at No. 41 Plaridel Street, Cebu
City, that only his first two children, namely, George and Henry, were of
school age and were enrolled at the Cebu Gospel School a private institution
recognized by the Philippine Government not limited to any particular race or
nation where Philippine civics, history and government were taught as part of
the school curriculum; that he derived an annual income of P7,000 more or less,
from his profession as an employee; and, lastly that he possessed all the
qualifications necessary to become Filipino citizen and none of the
disqualifications.  Accompanying the
petition was the joint affidavit of character witness Juan Causing and
Celestino Go.

After the requisite publication and hearing, the lower court
rendered the appealed judgment which the Solicitor General now urges us to
reverse upon the following grounds:

“I.  The lower court erred in
not dismissing the petition for naturalization on the ground that it is fatally
defective for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 7 of the
Revised Naturalization Law relative to the allegations of the petition.

“II.  The lower court erred
in not holding that petitioner has no lucrative income.

“III.  The lower court erred
in not holding that petitioner’s character witnesses are un­reliable and not
qualified to act as such.

“IV.  The lower court erred
in not holding that petitioner’s evidence is insufficient and inadequate to
prove that be has conducted him­self in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the period of his residence in the Philippines.

“V.  The lower court finally
erred in not holding that the testimonies of petitioner’s character witnesses
are insufficient to establish his qualifications and absence of dis­qualifications
on his part for Philippine citi­zenship.”

Upon general consideration of the
pertinent facts and the applicable law, we believe that only the second
assignment of error need be considered, for if the lower court really committed
it, there would be sufficient jus­tification for reversing the decision
appealed from.

On the matter of appellee’s
monthly income, he contends that the same consists of a monthly salary of
P300.00 that he received as salesman of the Asiatic Commercial and a similar
monthly amount he received, also as salesman of the Silver Cup Wine
Factory.  We are inclined to doubt the
veracity of this claim in view of the fact that it has not been established by
indubitable evidence, and his alleged employers are his close relatives; the
Asiatic Commercial was owned by his own mother-in-law, while the Silver Cup
Wine Factory was owned by his uncle.  To
this must be added the circumstance that appellee does not seem to have filed
any income tax return in relation to his alleged income from both entities.

In view of the foregoing, the
State’s contention that the evidence does not show that appellee has a
lucrative income derived from a lawful profession must be sustained.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, with
costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.