GO BON THE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is a petition filed by Go Bon
The before the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking to become a Filipino
citizen. After hearing, the petition was granted subject to the provisions of
Republic Act No. 530 which requires the lapse of two years before the decision
may become executory and after showing that petitioner has complied with the
requirements therein provided. The government has appealed.

Petitioner was born in China on
November 15, 1914, being a citizen of the Republic of Nationalist China. He
arrived in the Port of Cebu on December 14, 1923 and was issued an alien
certificate of registration and an immigration certificate of residence. He has
continuously resided in the Philippines, except for short visits in China, for
more than 36 years, during which period he resided in various places, to wit:
in Tres de Abril and C. Padilla streets before the war, then in Camiguin,
Oriental Misamis, where he evacuated during the Japanese occupation, then he
returned to Cebu City after liberation and resided in Comercio street from 1948
to 1956, and transferred to Espeleta street, where he is now staying. His
changes of address were duty reported to the immigration office of the Port of
Cebu.

Petitioner claims that he is a
merchant by occupation being engaged in buying and selling hogs from which he
nets an annual income of around P6,000.00. He filed his income tax return for
1958 showing that his net income for that year was P7,133.29. He has no pending
tax obligation with the government, he speaks and writes the English language
and the Cebu dialect. He has never been charged with any crime, and is not
suffering from mental alienation or from any incurable contagious disease.

Petitioner is married to Lo Tin who
was horn in China and from their marriage the following children were born:
Eden Go alias Be Hua born in Cebu City on July 20, 1940; Roberto Go alias Ho
Pin born in Cebu City on August 4, 1944; Beatriz Go born in Cebu City on June
22, 1946, and Jackson Go alias Han Lim born in Cebu City on January 26, 1948.
These children are studying in schools where Philippine history, government and
civics are taught.

Petitioner also claims that he is
of good moral character having conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his stay in the Philippines. He has socially
mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a desire to learn and embrace Filipino
customs, traditions and ideals. He is not opposed to organized government and
is not affiliated with any association upholding or teaching doctrines opposed
to organized government. He does not defend or teach the use of violence,
personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of his ideas.
And he is not a polygamist or a believer in polygamy.

Two residents of Cebu City vouched
for petitioner’s character and irreproachable conduct by declaring that they
had known him for more than ten years. They also declared that he is
law abiding, friendly, just and fair to his neighbor. And in their opinion he
possesses all the qualifications to become a Filipino citizen. In this appeal,
the government raises the following; issues: (1) petitioner docs not have
lucrative trade or occupation; and (2) he failed to state in his petition all
the places where he resided in the Philippines.

With regard to the first issue,
petitioner admitted that he does not own real estate. He claims, however, that
Ins business or occupation which gives him an annual income of about P6,000.00
constitutes a lucrative trade for the same is sufficient to support himself and
his family composed of five members. The government disagrees with this view.

We are of the opinion that this
view is not well-taken, for the occupation in which petitioner is engaged
cannot constitute lucrative trade within the meaning of the law even admitting
what is reflected in the income tax return he submitted for 1958 that his net
income was P7,133.29, for such would give him at most a monthly income of
P594.44. Since petitioner’s family consists all in all of six members, including
himself and his wife, on the basis of the monthly income above-stated, what
belongs to each per capita would be only P99.07. This, amount can hardly be
considered lucrative considering the present high cost of living and the low
purchasing power of the peso. Thus, in Keng Giok vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13347
(August 31, 1961), wherein the income of petitioner in 1956 was P8,687.50, this
Court held that such income could not be considered substantial or lucrative
since petitioner had five minor children as dependents and as such their
monthly income per capita was only P103.42. The per capita income of each
member of the family of herein petitioner being lower, a portion, his trade
cannot be considered sufficient to satisfy the requirement of our Naturalization
law.

We also find tenable the contention
that petitioner has not stated in his petition all his former places of
residence as required by law. Thus, in his petition petitioner stated that his
present place of residence is Espeleta street, Cebu City, where he has resided
since August, 1956; that he has previously resided at Comercio street, of the
same city; and that during the Japanese occupation he evacuated to Camiguin
Island, Misamis Oriental. However, in the testimony he gave before the court a
quo he stated that he previously resided in Tres de Abril and C. Padilla
streets of the City of Cebu, which he failed to mention in his petition. This
omission-is a violation of Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473 which provides
that a petition for naturalization should state not only the present residence
but also all other places where petitioner had formerly resided.

The contention that the omission of
Tres de Abril and C. Padilla streets in the petition is not serious because he
honestly believed that to mention them was not necessary in view of the fact
that he had already stated that he resided in Comercio street which is very,
near the streets that were omitted, is untenable, for the same cannot be
considered as an excuse from complying with the law. This is because such
requirement has a definite purpose, which is to enable the government or its
agents to check up on the different activities of petitioner and make such
appropriate inquiries as may be necessary to determine his character and moral
fitness to become a Filipino citizen.

“x x x The reason for such a
requirement is, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, to ‘facilitate
checking up on the different activities of the petitioner bearing on his
petition for naturalization especially as to his qualifications and moral
character) either by private individuals or government agencies, by indicating
to them the localities or places in which to make appropriate inquiries or
investigations thereon.’Needless to say, by such omission, appellant, in effect,
falsified the truth, indicating lack of good moral character on his part, which
disqualifies him from admission to Philippine citizenship (Sec. 2 [3] Rev. Nat.
Law).” (Keng Giok vs. Republic, supra)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. Costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, RegalaMakalintal, JJ., concur.