IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FELICIANO T. TAN, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR.

Appeal taken by the Republic of the Philippines
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros
granting the petition for naturalization filed by Feliciano T. Tan on June 16, 1961 which alleged, inter alia, the following:

That petitioner was a Chinese citizen born on June 9, 1931, in Larena, Oriental Negros, which
place had since then been his residence; that he was single, working as a
salesman at the Motor Supply located at 1032-36 Reina Regente Street, Manila, with a monthly salary of two
hundred pesos; that he had all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law; that he was exempt from filing a declaration
of intention; that Esperidion G. Heceta
and Cornelio Padayhag, both Filipinos of legal age,
whose joint affidavit was attached to the petition, would appear and testify as
his character witnesses.

The State prays for the
reversal of the appealed decision claiming that the following errors were com­mitted
by the trial court:

“I

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER
HAS NOT RESIDED IN NEGROS ORIENTAL AT LEAST FOR ONE YEAR
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE FIL­ING OF THE PETITION.

II

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN ALLOWING WITNESSES OTHER THAN THOSE WHO WERE ENUMERATED IN THE
PETITION TO TESTIFY ON THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MORAL CHARACTER OF THE PETITIONER.

III

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO STATE IN
THE PETITION ALL HIS FORMER PLACES OF RESIDENCE.

IV

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A LUCRATIVE INCOME.”

The first, third and fourth assignments of error are meritorious.

The record shows that petitioner had been residing at 1036
Reina Regente Street,
Manila, since March 1960, up to and during
the hearing of the petition.  Since the
petition was filed on June 21, 1961, it is clear that petitioner did not have
the requisite one year residence in Oriental Negros immediately
preceding the filing of his
petition in violation of the
provision of the revised naturalization law to the effect that the Court of
First Instance of the province in which
the petitioner had resided at least one year immediately preceding the
filing of his petition has the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear his
petition for naturalization. 
Consequently, the court below had no jurisdiction over petitioner’s case
(Chin Cuan Go vs. Republic, G.R. L-15794, December 29, 1962; Cheng Yen vs. Republic, G.R. L-18885, January 31, 1964; Lim vs.
Republic, G.R. No. 9999, December 24, 1957).

In connection with the
third assignment of error the record also shows that petitioner had resided at
different times in the following places:

1.                 
At Larena,
Negros Oriental from birth on June 9,
1931 until 1947 when
he finished his Elementary grades (p. 28, tsn.);

2.                 
At Dumaguete, Negros Oriental from 1947 to 1949 (pp. 28,
33-34);

3.                 
In Manila
from 1949-51 (pp. 28, 34, 35, tsn.);

4.                 
In Dumaguete City
from 1951 to 1952 (p. 34, tsn.);

5.                 
In Cebu City, from 1952 to 1954 (p. 34, tsn.); and

6.                 
In Manila
at 1036 Reina
Regente from March 1960 up to the time of the hearing
of the Petition (pp. 22, 40, tsn.).

His petition for naturalization (Record on Appeal, page 2),
however, simply alleges that he had resided continuously in the Philippines for
a term of not less than thirty years immediately preceding the date of his
petition, and at the municipality of Larena, Oriental
Negros.  This
makes petitioner’s application fatally
defective, it having been consistently held by this Court that petitioner’s
failure to state in his petition all his residences affects the authority of
the Court to act upon his case (Yap vs. Republic, G.R. L-19832, August 23,
1966; Nerio Tan vs. Republic, G.R. L-22207, May 30, 1946; Agueda
Go vs. Republic, G.R. L-21895, April 29, 1960; Tan vs. Republic, G.R. L-13224, April 24, 1960; So vs. Republic,
G.R. L-20558, March 31, 1965).

Anent the fourth assignment of error, the evidence shows that
petitioner’s income at the time when he filed his petition for naturalization
was only two hundred pesos per month – an amount which, according to the standard
set in previous decisions of this Court, cannot be considered lucrative.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby
reversed, and the petition for
naturalization filed by petitioner is dismissed, with costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., Makalintal,
Zaldivar,Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on official leave.