IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. CARMEN DY ALIAS DY GIOK KHA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Solicitor General from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Occidental granting the petition for naturalization, as
citizen of the Philippines, of appellee Carmen Dy. Upon a review of the record,
we are satisfied that said petition should be dismissed, for:

1. Petitioner has no lucrative occupation, it being alleged in her petition
   that her income is P2,400 a year, or P200 a month, which is far from being
   “lucrative” within the purview of the Naturalization Law, considering that she
   has six (6) children, five (5) of them dependent upon her and of school age.^[1] In fact, her gross receipts in 1959
   amounted to P1,713.16 only.

2. In her declaration of intention, as well as in her petition herein,
   petitioner stated that her name is Carmen Dy alias Dy Giok Kha; but her
   birth certificate, dated May 13 , 1924, shows that she was born and baptized
   with the name Carmen Dy. This is confirmed by her alien certificate of
   registration dated November 28, 1945. However, her immigration certificate of
   residence, issued in 1951, shows that she then began to use the “alias Dy
   Giok Kha”. It is not disputed that petitioner had secured no previous judicial
   authority for the use of said alias. In other words, she has violated the
   Anti-Alias-Law, which is sufficient groundto deny her application for
   naturalization.[2]

3. Petitioner has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace the customs and
   traditions of the Filipinos, she having enrolled everyone of her six (6)
   children in Chinese schools. Although, after the filing of her petition for
   naturalization, petitioner transferred two (2) of them to a Catholic school,
   this circumstance—apart from having been obviously influenced by the present
   proceedings—does not detract from the fact that her behavior, at the time of the
   commencement thereof and prior thereto, showed a lack of earnest intention to
   identify herself and her children with the Filipino community.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby
reversed, and the petition for naturalization herein dismissed, with costs
against petitioner Carmen Dy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro,
JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.

---

^[1] Keng Giok vs. Republic, L-13347,
August 31, 1961; Justo Tan @ Li Sui vs. Republic, L-16013, March 30, 1963; Uy
Ching Ho vs. Republic, L-19582, March 26, 1965; Yu Tiu vs. Republic, L-19844,
June 30, 1965; Ong Hock Lian @ Julian Ong vs. Republic, L-21197, May 19, 1966;
Hui Eng vs. Republic, November 24, 1966.

^[2] Cosme Go Tian vs. Republic, L-19833,
August 31, 1966; Joseph Soglou vs. Republic, L-20318, May 19, 1966; Kock Tee Yap
vs. Republic, L-20992, May 14, 1966; Lee Tit vs. Republic, L-21446, April 29,
1966; Wayne Chang vs. Republic, L-20713, April 29, 1966; Leoneio Dy vs.
Republic, L-20152, February 28, 1966.

^[3] Hui Eng vs. Republic, L-20714, November
24, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat vs. Republic, L-19579, February 28, 1966; Lim Yuen vs.
Republic, L-21218, December 24, 1965; Ti Tong Pek vs. Republic, L-20912,
November 29, 1965.