IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. ADELAIDO DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Government from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga granting the petitioner-appellee’s
application for naturalization.

Adelaido de Guzman, a citizen of Nationalist China,
single, applied for Philippine citizenship. After due hearing, the
lower court, finding that he has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications, granted the petition on July 30, 1962. The Solicitor
General, who opposed the petition in the lower court, interposed this
appeal on the issue that petitioner has no lucrative trade or
profession.

Petitioner alleged in his petition and oral
testimony that he is employed as cashier in the Snow White Ice Cream
Factory located at 1687 Franco St., Tondo, Manila, with a salary of
?200.00 a month plus free board and lodging. In addition, he tutors the
four children of his employer where he receives a teaching fee of
P160.00 a month. This fact was attested by a certifiate of employment
signed by his employer. The oppositor-appellant contends that the
occupation of petitioner is not lucrative.

It is believed that the contention of the Solicitor General is meritorious for this Court has already ruled in the case of Sia vs. Republic. G. R. No. L-20290, August 31, 1965, that:

“***
Considering,that this Court has already ruled that a monthly income of
P200.00 with free board and lodging (Albert Ong Ling Chuan vs. Republic, L-18850, February 28, 1964; Luis Yap vs.
Republic, L-19649, April 30, 1965), or even an annual income of
P2,000.00 to P3,000.00 aside from bonus and allowances, is not
lucrative for an applicant who is single because of the high cost of
living and the prevailing low value of the peso (Leonidas Tan vs.
Republic, L-19694, March 30, 1965), it is evident that the petitioner
has not satisfied the requirement of lucrative income or occupation
under our Naturalization law.”

Even an annual
income of P3,6000.00 (P300.00 a month) for an applicant who is single
has been considered not lucrative in the case of Uy vs. Republic. G. R. No. L-20208, June 30, 1965.

Granting that petitioner has an additional income of P160.00
a month as a private tutor, although this was not attested to by the
witnesses, this cannot be considered in determining gainful employment,
it being unsteady, contingent and irregular (Dy vs. Republic, L-20348, December 24, 1965).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition for naturalization dismissed.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.