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

Go A, Leng seeks Filipino citizenship through a petition filed on November
16, 1960 before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Attached to the petition,
among others, is his declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen and
the affidavits of his witnesses Luis G. Hofilena and Patricio M. Miguel. The
petition was later amended in view of the death of Hofilena, who was substituted
by Venancio Velasco.

The court a quo granted the petition and in due time the government took the
present appeal.

Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of China having been
born in Amoy, China. He was married to Perla Pama How on January 12, 1961, with
whom he has no children. He arrived in the Philippines on October 6, 1938,
having resided there continuously since then, except only in 1947 when he mint
to China for a visit.

He is the Dean of Discipline and Assistant Property Custodian of the Iloilo
Chinese Commercial School from which he receives a salary of P200.00 a month. He
is working also on a part-time basis at the La Paz Bijon Factory which is owned
by his brother-in-law for which he receives a salary of P100.00 a month. His
wife is also teaching at the Iloilo Chinese Commercial School where she receives
a salary of P140.00 a month.

He filed his income tax returns jointly with his wife for the year’s 1960 and
1961 and has paid the corresponding tax thereon. He resides at the house of his
brother-in-law where he is given free board. He has a bank deposit of P6,000.00.
He is registered as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration and is the holder of
an immigrant certificate of residence.

Upon his arrival in the Philippines, he stayed in Manila for a few months and
subsequently went to Iloilo City where he has resided continuously up to the
present. He finished his primary and elementary education at the Iloilo
Commercial School and took up his secondary course at the Central Philippine
University. He can speak and write the local Visayan dialect and the English
language.

He believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution has
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period
of residence in the Philippines; maintained cordial relations with the members
of the community where he is living; mingled socially with the Filipinos and has
embraced their customs, traditions and ideals. He is not opposed to organized
government, nor is he affiliated with any subversive group which upholds and
teaches doctrines opposed to organized government. He is not a member of the
communist party or of any other association which intends to overthrow the
Government of the Philippines. He does not defend or teach the necessity of
violence for the success or predominance of his ideas. He is not a polygamist
nor a believer in the practice of polygamy. He has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude.

The government opposes the petition on the ground that petitioner does not
have a lucrative income sufficient enough to give him economic stability as a
Filipino citizen. Indeed, petitioner only receives a salary of P200.00 a month
from the Iloilo Chinese Commercial School as Dean of Discipline and Assistant
Property Custodian which can hardly be considered lucrative even taken in its
liberal sense and even if we bear in mind that he has so far no child to support
considering the low value of the peso and the ever increasing cost o£ living
that now beset our people.

It is true that, as petitioner claims, he also works on a part-time basis at
the La Pas Bijon Factory where he receives a salary of P100.00 a month, but he
cannot derive much comfort from such claim considering that the factory belongs
to his brother-in-law, a circumstance which gives the impression that he was
given that employment merely to accommodate him for the purposes of this
petition. Thus, it appears that he was employed in that factory only after
filing his original petition on March 15, 1960 and a few days before he filed
the amended petition on January 16, 1961, which, as the Solicitor General has
aptly remarked, “indicates unmistakably that petitioner’s so-called part-time
employment was merely a devise to make it appear that he has a sufficient
lucrative income.” If we disregard this part-time income, petitioner’s income
and that of his wife would only be P340.00 a month, which is a far cry from what
this Court has regarded as lucrative within the meaning of the law.

“* * * Does petitioner’s salary of P200.00 a month, assuming that he does
receive’ it, satisfy the requirement? Recent decisions have ruled Negatively on
this question, considering the present purchasing value of our currency (Cf. Ong
Ling Chuan vs. Republic, L-18550, February 28, 1964).” (Koh Chet
vs. Republic, L-17223, June 30, 1964)

“* * * Considering the low buying power of the peso at presents a salary of
P200 .00 a month is not lucrative (R. Ong v. Republic, G. R. No. L-1576A., May
19, 1961; Kong Giok vs. Republic, G. R. Ho. L-13347, Aug. 31, 1961).”
(Ong Ling Chuan vs. Republic, L-18550, February 28, 1964)

“Besides, appellee’s annual income of P3,000 only is not lucrative within the
meaning of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. Even if added to his
wife’s annual income of P3,300 still their total income of P6,300 falls short of
the requirement of the law, considering that they have a child to support and
the already present high cost of living continues to go up,” (Tan vs.
Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963)

Another ground on which the government predicates its opposition is the use
by petitioner of an alias name without obtaining the authority required by law
(Commonwealth Act 142, Section 2), and his failure to secure the permission of
the Minister of Interior of China for his change of nationality and renunciation
of Chinese citizenship as required by the Chinese Law of Nationality, matters
which do not appear satisfactorily explained in the record. There is, on the
other hand, sufficient evidence that gives validity to these objections.

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

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