IN RE: PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION, GO AY KOC, PETITIONER-APPELLANT VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

An appeal from
the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, in its Natural­ization Case No. 102,
denying appellant Go Ay Koc’s motion to take his oath
of allegiance as a Filipino citizen after the lapse of the statutory period of
two (2) years from the issuance of the decision grant­ing his petition for
naturalization.

It appears that an
November 24, 1959, Go Ay Koc filed his petition for
naturalization with the court a
quo which, after a hearing in which the Government was represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General, grant­ed the petition in its decision of July 18, 1961.  Pur­portedly
pursuant to Republic Act No. 530, after two years from the promulgation of said
decision, or more specifically on July 19, 1963, Go Ay Koc filed a motion
with the same court, praying that he be allowed to take his oath.  This time, the Solicitor General did not only
interpose an opposition but further moved that the decision of July 18, 1961 be set aside. 
After several days of hearing, the trial court set aside the decision of
July
18, 1961, and denied
petitioner’s motion to take his oath, as prayed for by the Solicitor
General.  A subsequent mo­tion for new
trial filed by petitioner on May 5, 1964
was likewise denied by the court in its order of June 24, 1964, hence the instant appeal.

Appellant here contends that the
court below erred in so setting aside the decision granting his petition for naturalization, and
in denying his motion to take his oath. 
More specifically, he maintains that the court was not justified in sustaining the Solicitor
General’s posi­tion that (1) he failed to state in his petition all the places of his previous residence; (2) he
has enrolled his children in exclusive Chinese schools; and (3) he failed to
show that he has a lucrative
income as grounds for the action thus taken by the court.

Appellant’s appeal is untenable,

1.  By
his own testimony during the hearing of his motion to take his oath, appellant
disclosed that he had lived in various places, other than his present
residence, namely: in Rosales, Pangasinan; San Pedro,
Magalang, Pampanga; in Cebu; in many places in Manila (Juan Luna, Al­varado Ext., Barbosa, Camarines, Yakal); and at No. 15, San Luis, Pasay
City.^[1]  And he
admitted that he did not set forth in his petition all these past places of residence.^[2]  This is a clear violation of Section 7 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473;^[3] and a defect fatal to the jurisdiction of the trial
court to hear and grant his petition.^[4]  Neither his
alleged good faith in believing
that it was not necessary to make such allegations in his pe­tition, nor his
subsequent disclosure of said places during the hearing of his motion can be
deemed to have cured such jurisdictional defect,^[5] for the stubborn fact still remains that full inquiry
as to the irreproachability of appellant’s behavior was thereby prevented and
the law’s intent frustrated.^[6]

2.  The
record also shows that at the time of the hearing of his motion referred to,
three (3) of appellant’s children were enrolled at the Chang Kai Shek High School and the Anglo-Chinese School whose
principals were Pao Shih Tien
and Phi Jun Thoan – circumstances strongly sug­gesting
to the mind of the Court that said schools are run by and for Chinese
nationals.  Of course, appellant exhi­bited
certificates of said schools to the effect that they are duly recognized by the
Government, that Philippine History, Civics and Government are subjects taught
therein and that they admit students regardless of race, color or religious
creed,^[7] but there is no evidence that those schools are regularly
attended by a sizable number of Fi­lipino students from whom his children
above-mentioned could have imbibed Filipino customs and traditions.^[8]  This Court has
repeatedly held that in such circumstances, there is failure to comply with the
requirement of the law that a petitioner for naturalization must evince a
sincere desire to embrace Philippine customs, traditions and ideals and to
mingle socially with Filipinos.^[9]

3.  It
finally appears that appellant had submitted his income tax returns showing
earnings of P16,915.90 and P17,145.50 for the years
1961 and 1962, respectively.^[10]  It is readily seen, however, that the
returns aforesaid reflect a regular monthly salary of only P300.00 – with the
rest of the alleged income, quite substantial the, representing
“miscellaneous income, Sweepstakes and other winnings.”  Explaining these items during the hearing,
appellant testified that the declared “miscellaneous in­come” in his
income tax returns were commissions earned as purchased agent for his father
and brother who separately owned and operated glassware stores in Cebu and Davao; while the
“winnings” represent prizes won in the sweepstakes and the Jai
Alai.^[11]  Suffice it to
say in this con­nection that this Court has held in a number of cases,^[12] that “commissions” – being generally
contingent and specu­lative – are not considered as income for purposes of pe­titions
for naturalization.  Definitely,
Sweepstakes and Jai Alai winnings which are obviously more speculative in
character cannot be considered in such regard. 
Commis­sions, in some instances, may perhaps be approximated with
regular income, but such is not true in this case where, other than appellant’s
own assertion, there is no evidence that he was regularly employed and also
regularly paid commissions by his father and brother as a purchasing
agent.  In fact, appellant admits that he
had no papers to prove either the alleged commissions received, or the
above-mentioned winnings.^[13]  What is more,
his alleged principals or employers from whom he is supposed to have received
commissions were his own father and brother, a circumstance which, to put it mildly, makes his claim re­garding
the commissions in question suspicious. 
Eliminating such items from appellant’s income, what remains to be
considered for the purposes of his petition for natu­ralization is only his
monthly salary of P300.00 -an income clearly insufficient to support a wife and
his six (6) children, three (3) of whom were in college and the three (3)
others enrolled in the exclusive Chinese schools earlier mentioned at the time
of the hearing of his peti­tion. 
Evidently, appellant does not meet the requirement of lucrative income.

FOR THE FOREGOING
CONSIDERATIONS, the instant appeal is
dismissed, with costs against appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and
Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Castro and Capistrano, JJ., did not take part.

^[1]
TSN (Hearing of September 10, 1963), p. 19.

^[2]
TSN (Hearing of September 10, 1963), p. 13.

^[3]
“Petition for citizenship. – Any person desiring to acquire Philippine
citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate,
accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and
surname; his present and former places of residence; his occupation; the
place and date of his birth; whether single or married and the father of
children; the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and each of the
children;  x x x.”

^[4]
Lo vs. Republic, L-15919, May 19, 1961; Keng Giok vs. Republic,
L-13347, August 31, 1961; Kao Gui vs. Republic,
L-13717, July 31, 1962; Qua vs. Republic, L-19834, Oct. 27, 1964; Yao Long vs. Republic, L-20910, Nov. 27, 1965; Tan Tian vs. Republic, L-19899, March 18, 1967; Cu King
Nan vs. Republic, L-20490, June 29, 1968; Chua Chu
vs. Republic, L-24951, July 20, 1968; Sy Suan vs. Republic, L-23470, Feb. 28, 1969; Cf. Choa Hai vs. Republic,
L-23515, Feb. 27, 1969.

^[5]
Lo vs. Republic, supra; Qua
vs. Republic, supra; Yu Ti vs. Republic, L-19913,
June 23, 1965; Kao Heng vs. Republic, L-21079,
Feb. 28, 1966; O Ku Phuan vs. Republic,
L-23406, Aug. 31, 1967; Choa Hai
vs. Republic, supra.

^[6]
Republic vs. Cokeng, L-19829, May 4, 1968; Choa, Hai vs. Republic, supra.

^[7]
Folder of Exhibits, pp. 39
& 40.

^[8]
Cf. Lee Ng Len vs. Republic, L-20151, March 31, 1965; Te Poot vs.
Republic, L-20017, March 28, 1969.

^[9]
Choa Hai vs. Republic, supra,
citing Uy Ching Ho vs.
Republic, L-19582, Mar. 26, 1965; Lee Ng Len vs. Republic, supra;
Ong Ping Seng vs.
Republic, L-19575, Feb. 26, 1965.

^[10]
Folder of Exhibits, pp. 4
& 10.

^[11]
TSN (Hearing of Sept. 10,
1963), p. 21 et seq.

^[12]
See Tan vs. Republic, L-22207, May 30, 1966; Lim vs. Republic, L-22437, June 21, 1966, citing cases; Po Chu King vs.
Republic, L-20810, May 16, 1967; Tui Tua Pi vs.
Republic, L-20909, May 24, 1967.

^[13]
TSN (Hearing of Sept. 10, 1963), p. 23; (Hearing
of Oct. 3, 1963), p. 23.