IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. FRANCISCO SY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
from the order of the Court of
First Instance of Manila allowing the petitioner, Francisco Sy,
to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen. This case has been submitted for decision without appellee’s brief.

On May 4, 1960
Francisco Sy filed in the lower court a petition for
naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines.  On March 7, 1961 the Solicitor General moved
to dismiss the petition on the
ground that “the petition on its face states no cause of action,”
since the petitioner’s annual income of
P1,800.00, or P150.00 a month, could not be considered as lucrative within the
meaning of the Naturalization Law.  In
its order of March 8, 1961, the lower court
dismissed the petition, but later on, upon motion of the petitioner, reconsidered said order and set the petition
for hearing.

The petitioner presented evidence tending to show that he was
born in Manila on April 2, 1936; that since birth he had resided in the Philippines,
parti­cularly in Manila, except for
a brief stay of about one month in Formosa
sometime in 1958; that at the time of the hearing his residence was at No. 858 Sto. Cristo, Manila,
while his former residence was at 1758 Sto. Cristo St., Manila; that he was single, a Chinese
citizen, and registered as such with the Bureau of Immigration and the Embassy
of the Republic of China; that he could speak and write English and Tagalog; that he completed the elementary course in the
Anglo-Chinese School during the school year 1950-51; that he graduated from the
high school department of the
University of the East during the school year 1955-56; that in 1959 he had an
income of P1,780.00 and in 1960,
the year the petition was filed, he had an income of p1,827.28; that he derived
his income from his employment as a salesman of the East Hongkong Food Commercial Company,
a firm partly owned by his brother, where he himself had a share in the
capital; and that he was living with his brother who provided him with free
board and lodging.  Two witnesses, both
residents of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, who claimed to have known the peti­tioner since
1949, vouched for his good moral character and irreproachable conduct.

After considering the evidence, the lower court rendered its
decision on March 31, 1962,
granting the petition, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530.  No appeal was taken therefrom
by the government.

On April 14, 1964
the petitioner filed a petition to take his oath.  After several hearings the Solicitor General
filed an Opposition and Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds, namely: (1)
that the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the petition for naturaliza­tion
because of the failure of the petitioner to file a declaration of intention; (2) that the petitioner was without
lucrative income; and (3) that the
petitioner’s character witnesses were not credible persons.  In an order dated February 22, 1965, the lower court
overruled the opposition of the
Solicitor General and granted the petition for oath taking.  Within the reglementary
period, the Solicitor General interposed this appeal.

On February 25, 1965,
even before the expiration of the time to appeal, the trial Judge administered the oath of allegiance to the petitioner.  Upon
motion of the Solicitor General, this Court issued a preliminary injunction on September 24, 1965, enjoining the
clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila from issuing a
certificate of naturalization to the petitioner,
and likewise enjoining the petitioner from representing him­self as a
Filipino citizen and from exercising any of the rights and privileges
appertaining to such citizen­ship.

Of the several grounds relied upon by the Solicitor General, we
need consider, only one, namely, that the petitioner lacked the qualification
of lucrative income.  The rule is settled that this qualification is determined as of the
date of filing the petition, and increases in the earnings thereafter cannot be taken into consideration.^[1] Here, the petitioner’s income in 1960, the year when the
petition was filed, was P1,827.28, or approximately P150.00 a month.  In
pre­vious decisions of this Court, it was held that even for an unmarried applicant, P200.00 a month, with free
board and lodging, could not be considered as a lucrative income in 1960.^[2]

In connection with the
administration of the oath to the petitioner even before the expiration of the
time to appeal, this Court had on several occa­sions expressed its disapproval
of such practice.  Thus:

“Finally, we must agree with the government’s stand that the
act of the court of first instance in allowing this applicant to take the oath
of allegiance even before the expiration of the Government’s period to appeal
from the order overruling its
objections thereto, and, in fact, three (3) days before the Solicitor General received
copy of the appealed order, is highly irregular, to say the least.  Republic Act No. 530 contemplates that the ap­plicant
for naturalization becomes entitled to all the privileges of citi­zenship upon
taking the oath of allegiance, and precipitate administration of the oath in
present case appears to be an attempt to render nugatory the Government’s
appeal.  The record is devoid of any justification for
such unseemly haste in conferring the privileges of citizenship before any and
all doubts about appli­cant’s right thereto are finally settled and we must
make of record our disapproval of the practice.”^[3]

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed, the
petition for naturalization is dismissed, the oath of allegiance taken by the appellee is declared without force and effect; and the
preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made permanent.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pessumal Bhrojraj vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-24023, May 8, 1969
and the cases cited; Te Poot vs. Republic, G.R.
No, L-20017, March 29, 1969;
O Ku Phuan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-23406, August 31, 1967, and the cases cited.

^[2]
Ong Ling Chuan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-18550,
February 28, 1964; Luis Yap
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-19649, April 30, 1965; Benjamin Yap vs. Republic, G.R. No.
L-20372, May 14, 1966; Chan
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-22352, June
30, 1966.

^[3]
So vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20145,
June 30, 1965,
reiterated in Yong Sai vs. Republic, G.R.
No. L-20483, Sept. 30, 1966.