IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES CASIANO KING, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

In support of his application, petitioner presented in the lower
court evidence which established the following: That petitioner was
born in Manila on August 13, 1933, and has been residing therein since
birth; that he is a sales supervisor of the Pacific Glass Company with
a basic monthly salary of P500.00 and an annual income of about
P10,000.00; that he is at present a citizen of Nationalist China under
whose laws Filipinos may be admitted as naturalized citizens thereof;
that he is married to Ko Le Tin, a Chinese national, who was born in
Hongkong on June 12, 1939 and by whom he has one child, Cary King, who
was born in Manila on September 13, 1960 and lives with the petitioner
at 825 Salazar Street, Manila; that he can speak and write English and
Tagalog; that he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution; that he has mingled socially with Filipinos, has evinced
a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipinos, is not opposed to organized government or
affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments, is not defending or
teaching the propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination
for the success and predominance of man’s ideas, is not a polygamist or
a believer in the practice of polygamy; has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude, nor suffering from any incurable
contagious disease; that it is his intention to become in good faith a
citizen of the Philippines and to renounce absolutely and forever all
allegiance and fidelity to any other state, particularly to the
Republic of China and to reside continuously in the Philippines from
the date of the filing of this petition until his admission to
Philippine citizenship; and that he had not heretofore filed any other
petition for citizenship in any court.

The petition was denied, however, in a decision rendered on August
29, 1961, on the ground that the two witnesses, Angelina Baluyut and
Dr. Jose Velasco, did not sufficiently prove that petitioner had
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the Philippines.

On September 19, 1961, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial which the trial court denied in its order dated
September 23, 1961. Hence this appeal.

The issue before Us is whether or not the character witnesses should
attest that in his relation with the constituted government as well as
with the community in which he is living, petitioner has conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period
of his residence in the Philippines.

The applicable provisions are Section 2, paragraph 3, and the second
sentence of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. Section 2,
paragraph 3 provides:

“Third. He must be of good moral character and
believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and
must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his
relation with the constituted government as well as with the community
he is living.”

The second sentence of Section 7 reads:

“x
x x The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting
and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons,
stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know
the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act
and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said
petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to
became a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified
under the provisions of this Act. x x x.”

Petitioner insists that the phrase “period of time required by this
Act” refers to the ten (10) or five (5) years period of residence
required in Section 2, paragraph 2, or Section 3, respectively of the
Revised Naturalization Law, and not to paragraph 3 of Section 2 of the
same law requiring “entire period of his residence in the Philippines,”
unless naturally both periods coincide.

This Court has recently held that the character witnesses presented
by an applicant in naturalization cases, in order to qualify as
“insurers of the latter’s conduct and behaviour,” must have known
petitioner during his entire period of residence in the Philippines
(Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-22437, June 21, 1966; Republic v. Hon.
Andres Reyes, G.R. No. L-20602, December 24, 1965; Vy Tian @ Si Un v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-19918, July 30, 1965). Since the witnesses in this
case came to know petitioner only in 1939 and 1947, whereas petitioner
has been residing in the Philippines since his birth in 1933, it is
obvious that the witnesses are not in a position to vouch for
petitioner’s irreproachable conduct for the period required by law. (Ng
v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21179, January 22, 1966)

Furthermore, We notice from petitioner’s income tax return for 1960
that his salary plus representation and travel allowance is P5,165.00
and his bonus and commission is P5,000.00. For purposes of determining
whether petitioner’s occupation is lucrative, bonuses and commissions
cannot be taken into consideration for they are contingent, speculative
and precarious. (Tse v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19642, November 9, 1964;
Tochip v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19637, February 26, 1965; Sia v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-20290, August 31, 1965; Ng v. Republic, supra; Ong
Tai v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19418, December 23, 1965; Ong So v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-20145, June 30, 1965; Lim v. Republic, G.R. No.
L-22437, June 21, 1966) Petitioner’s bonus and commission which amount
to P5,000.00 should be excluded. Therefore, even granting that his
annual salary is P5,165.00 (the records do not show how much of this
amount is for representation and travel allowance), still petitioner,
who is married and has one minor child to support lacks the aforesaid
qualification. We have held in Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16013, March
30, 1963, that an annual income of P6,300.00 cannot be considered
lucrative for a married applicant with one child to support.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Makalintal, JJ., in the result.