IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MANUEL TO ALIAS MANUEL TOH TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  MANUEL TO ALIAS MANUEL TOH, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PH…

Manuel To versus Republic

The Case

This is a naturalization case. Manuel To, also known as Manuel Toh, a citizen of the Republic of China born in Cotabato and residing in Pasay City, asked the Court of First Instance of Rizal, sitting in Pasay City, to admit him as a citizen of the Philippines under the Naturalization Law. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, opposed him. The case matters because it shows, in the clearest terms, how the Supreme Court tests two requirements that every applicant must satisfy: a lucrative occupation, and proof of proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of residence in the Philippines, established through credible character witnesses.

Procedural History

Manuel To filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in Pasay City, on January 6, 1961. The petition was accompanied by the joint affidavit of two character witnesses, Florencio Mauleon and William Limos. After the required publication of the petition in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation, the Daily Mirror, the court held a trial on the merits. On January 9, 1962, the trial court rendered judgment finding the petitioner qualified for Philippine citizenship and granting his prayer to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The Solicitor General appealed in due time, and the case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

Manuel To alleged in his petition that he was born on June 6, 1937, in Cotabato, Cotabato, although he had been residing in the City of Pasay since 1955. He stated that he was single and a citizen or subject of the Republic of China, that he spoke and wrote English and Tagalog, and that he was an employee of the Elite Textile Company with an average annual income of 3,600 pesos. He claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines and had received his primary and secondary education in schools recognized by the Philippine Government and not limited to any race or nationality. He further alleged that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, that he had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence, that he had mingled socially with Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to embrace their customs, traditions, and ideals, that he was not opposed to organized government, that he was not a polygamist nor a believer in polygamy, that he had never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, and that he was not suffering from mental alienation or any incurable contagious disease.

To establish his financial qualifications, the petitioner relied on his income tax return for the calendar year 1961. It appeared that 1,000 pesos of the claimed 3,600 pesos annual income was in the nature of a bonus. His two attesting witnesses, Atty. Florencio Mauleon and Mr. William Limos, testified that they had known him since 1951 and spoke of his good behavior thereafter. On cross-examination, however, they admitted that their contact with him consisted of isolated meetings during vacation time, when the petitioner would spend a day or two with them.

The trial court found the petitioner qualified and granted the petition. The Solicitor General appealed, arguing among other things that the petitioner did not have a lucrative occupation and that the two character witnesses had not sufficiently known him.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner has a lucrative occupation within the meaning of the Naturalization Law, considering that a portion of his claimed annual income is a bonus.
• Whether or not the two character witnesses were sufficiently acquainted with the petitioner to establish that he conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, the Naturalization Law, provides:

He must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.

This is the conduct requirement that the attesting witnesses must be in a position to establish, and it is the provision the Court applies in testing their testimony.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner does not have a lucrative occupation. His income tax return for 1961 showed that 1,000 pesos of the claimed 3,600 pesos was a bonus, and the Court had repeatedly held that bonuses cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of determining whether an applicant has a lucrative occupation, since they are by nature indefinite and contingent. The petitioner's average annual income should therefore properly be considered as 2,600 pesos only, an amount the Court held cannot be considered lucrative, considering the present high standard of living and the low purchasing power of money. The Court adopted this definition:

Lucrative employment means a gainful employment. It is not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one's being becoming the object of charity or public charge.

The Court also noted that in an earlier case it did not consider an unmarried man earning 300 pesos a month, plus an annual bonus of 1,000 pesos from his employer, as having satisfactorily established possession of a lucrative income as required by law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the attesting witnesses were not in a position to establish the required conduct. Their contact with the petitioner consisted of isolated meetings during vacation time, when he would spend a day or two with them. Such occasional meetings are not sufficient to enable them to observe the petitioner's behavior, or to know his character, his beliefs, his social contacts and associations. In other words, they could not know whether or not he had the qualification of proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence. The appeal was therefore meritorious.

Doctrine

First, for purposes of determining whether an applicant for naturalization has a lucrative occupation, bonuses cannot be taken into consideration, because they are by nature indefinite and contingent. Lucrative employment means gainful employment that yields an income with an appreciable margin over expenses, sufficient to provide adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work, and thus avoid one's becoming an object of charity or public charge. Second, the qualification under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, that the applicant must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, must be established by attesting witnesses who are actually in a position to observe the applicant's behavior, character, beliefs, social contacts, and associations. Isolated or occasional meetings during vacation time are not sufficient for that purpose.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment appealed from and denied the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that a bonus is excluded from the income test for a lucrative occupation, and that character witnesses must have had a continuous opportunity to observe the applicant, not mere occasional meetings. Examiners use this case to test the lucrative occupation requirement and the sufficiency of attesting witnesses in naturalization proceedings.