IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BENEDICTO TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. BENEDICTO TAN, PETITIONERand APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR and…

Benedicto Tan, 21, single, was granted naturalization by the Quezon
court of first instance, over the objection of the provincial fiscal.
So, this appeal was interposed in due time.

And now, the Solicitor-General alleges that said court erred: (a) in
finding it has jurisdiction over the case; (b) in finding that the
petitioner had observed an irreproachable conduct; (c) in not declaring
that petitioner had no lucrative occupation; and (d) in believing the
character witnesses presented in support of the petition.

We find it unnecessary to pass on all the assigned errors. We see
that petitioner has no lucrative employment, and therefore, he is
disqualified from becoming a Filipino citizen. It is admitted that his
total income, “including meal allowances and overtime pay, amounts to
more or less P2,500.00 per annum” (p. 15, brief of appellee).

In the light of our recent decisions, such annual income disqualifies the applicant for Filipino citizenship.

1. Uy vs. Republic, L-20208, June 30, 1965. An
   applicant having an income of P3,600 per annum, though unmarried, does
   not have a “lucrative” occupation.
2. Uy vs. Republic, L-20799, November 29,
   1965. Applicant for naturalization earning P250.00 per month, does not
   have a “lucrative” income.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, and this application for naturalization denied, with costs.

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