IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LUIS YAP FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LUIS YAP, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the Republic
of the Philippines from the decision of the Court
of First Instance of lloilo, granting the petition for
naturalization filed by Luis Yap, a Chinese citizen.

The records show that the
requirements to confer jurisdiction on the lower court to hear the petition had
been complied with. The evidence shows that the petitioner was born in the city
of lloilo on May 27, 1937, the legitimate son of Ho Ye
and Yap Peng, both citizens of the Republic of
Nationalist China; that the petitioner has been residing in the city of lloilo although he is employed in Cebu City as a teacher in the Samantabhadra Institute; that he finished his elementary and
secondary education at the Sun Yat Sen High School of lloilo City, a
school that is open to any race or nationality and where Philippine history,
Philippine government and civics are taught; that as a teacher in the Samantabhadra Institute he received a monthly salary of
P200.00 from June 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959; P220.00 monthly from June 1, 1960
to March 31, 1961; and P200.00 monthly from June 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962; that
while in Cebu he is living in the house of his cousin,
another Chinese, for being a tutor to the children of his host; that he is
single, and that aside from his salary as a teacher he has no other source of
income; that he owns no real property; that he has resided in the Philippines
continuously since his birth. The evidence further shows that the petitioner
speaks the English language and the Ilongo dialect
that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine constitution and
has conducted himself properly during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in his relations with the duly constituted authorities and the
community where he lives, and that he had mingled socially with the Filipinos;
that he has no criminal record; that he is in good health; that he paid his
taxes to the government; that he is not opposed to any organized government nor
is he affiliated with any association that upholds and teaches the doctrine of
opposition against organized government and that he does not believe in the
necessity of violence, intimidation, personal assault or assassination for the
success and predominance of his ideas; and that he is not a polygamist.

The petitioner presented two
character witnesses, namely: Mr. Jose Villanueva Mapa,
an instructor in the Iloilo City Colleges; and Mrs. Ramona Fuentes, a
teacher in the Sun Yat Sen School in
Iloilo City. Both witnesses testified that
they had known the petitioner closely for over ten years and they vouched for
his good conduct and good moral character.

Upon the evidence presented
during the hearing, the lower court declared that the petitioner has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen as
provided in the Naturalization Law. The court thereby declared the petitioner
eligible for naturalization as Filipino citizen and that he may qualify as such
after the lapse of two years after the promulgation of said decision.

In this appeal the Solicitor
General points out that the lower court committed errors in its decision: (1) in
finding that the petitioner-appellee has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in the naturalization
law; (2) in not finding that the petitioner-appellee’s
conduct is not irreproachable; and (3) in finding that the two attesting
witnesses have established that the petitioner-appellee is qualified and not disqualified to a citizen of
the Philippines.

The Solicitor General discussed
jointly the three errors that he has assigned.

The Solicitor General contends
that the petitioner is not qualified for admission to Philippine citizenship
because at the time of the hearing of this petition he did not have a lucrative
employment. We find the contention of the Solicitor General to be meritorious.
The evidence shows that at the time of the hearing in December 1961, the
petitioner was employed as teacher in the Samantabhadra Institute in
Cebu City with a monthly salary of
P200.00. It was established that as such school teacher he was paid his salary
only during the school year; that is, from June 1 of each year to March 31 of
the following year. It can be said, therefore, that the petitioner was actually
getting paid only for a period of ten months every year. It results that the
annual income of the petitioner as of the time when this case was heard in the
court below was only P2,000.00, or at the rate of
P166.00 a month. Even if it is to be considered, as the petitioner had tried to
prove, that as such teacher he was living with a cousin in Cebu and was not paying for board and lodging because he was
at the same time a tutor of the children of his cousin, still it cannot be
considered that petitioner had a lucrative income as would qualify him for
admission to Philippine citizenship.

Considering the high cost of
living that has been prevailing, which cost of living had tended to increase
rather than to decrease, and considering further the low buying Power of the
Philippine currency, this Court has, in recent decisions, adopted a higher
standard in determining whether a petitioner for Philippine citizenship has a
lucrative income as would qualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship.
Two cases that had been decided by Court recently are squarely applicable to the
present of the petitioner. In the case of Albert Ong Lin Chuan vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G. R.
No. L-18550,
February 28,
1964,
this Court denied the petition for Philippine citizenship of petitioner who was
single and was employed in the Cosmos Industrial Co. with a salary of P200.00 a
month with free board and lodging. Again, in the case of Koh Chet alias Hianchit S. Chua
vs. Republic of the Philippines, G. R.
No. L-17223,
June 30,
1964,
this Court denied the petition for Philippine citizenship of the petitioner who
was single and was employed as purchaser and salesman in the store of his mother
with a monthly salary of P200.00.

On the ground, therefore, that
the petitioner, Luis Yap, did not have a lucrative income as of the time the
petition was heard in the court below, We agree with
the Solicitor General that the lower court erred in finding that the petitioner
had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become Filipino
citizen.

We do not consider it necessary
to discuss the other points raised by the Solicitor General in the discussion of
his assignment of errors.

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the
decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against the petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.