IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. SENECIO DY ONG ALIAS SENECIO DY GO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR…

Senecio Dy Ong versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a naturalization case. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur granting the petition for naturalization of Senecio Dy Ong, also known as Senecio Dy Go. The Republic asks the Supreme Court to reverse that grant on two grounds: that the applicant had no lucrative trade, profession, or occupation, and that his attesting witnesses were not credible persons under Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act Number 473. The case matters because it shows how strictly the Supreme Court measured the income qualification at the very moment the petition was filed, and how little weight it gave to earnings shown only after the government had already objected.

Procedural History

Senecio Dy Ong filed his petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The trial court granted the petition. The Republic, represented by the Solicitor General, appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the absence of a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation and the lack of credibility of the attesting witnesses. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and ruled against the applicant, with costs against him.

Facts

In his petition for naturalization, Senecio Dy Ong stated that he had an annual income of 1,800 pesos. His own evidence showed that he began working only in April 1960, at an alleged monthly salary of 150 pesos. He filed his petition on May 6, 1960, so by that date he had earned less than 306 pesos, and his total income for the year came to no more than 1,350 pesos, or barely 112 pesos and 50 centavos a month.

The applicant claimed that this compensation was paid by Ong Sing Trading, a business establishment in Goa, Camarines Sur, belonging to his own father, for whom he supposedly worked as purchasing agent in Manila while he was studying there. The Court found that, given the applicant's relationship with his alleged employer, this evidence smacked merely of an attempt to conveniently meet the statutory requirement of a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation.

On income for 1961 and 1962, the applicant testified that his salary was raised to 180 pesos a month from January to August 1961; that from September to December of that year, while studying in Manila, he earned 3,368 pesos and 23 centavos in commissions as agent in Manila of a certain Major Teofilo Padua, who did business in Naga City; and that from February 1962 he worked as a salesman for Leelin and Company at a monthly salary of 240 pesos plus a 40 peso allowance. The Court noted that this testimony was given in December 1962, several months after the government had already objected to the naturalization precisely because the alleged annual income of 1,800 pesos was not lucrative.

Issues

• Whether or not the applicant had a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation within the meaning of the naturalization law at the time he filed his petition.
• Whether or not the applicant's attesting witnesses were credible persons under Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, governs the attesting witnesses, and the Court's second assignment of error was framed under it:

Section 7. Petition for naturalization. — The petition shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and shall be signed by the petitioner and sworn to before the clerk of said court, and shall set forth the following facts: (1) His full name, age, place of birth, and place of residence; (2) His trade, profession or occupation, and the place where he has pursued the same during the year immediately preceding the filing of the petition; (3) The date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the name of the vessel or other means of transportation, and if he entered the country by land, the name of the country from which he came; (4) The names, ages and places of residence of his wife and minor children, if any; (5) That he has resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of at least ten years, and has 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 in which he is living; (6) That he has some known lucrative trade, profession, or occupation; (7) That he is able to speak and write English or some one of the principal native languages; (8) That he has enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Government, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen; (9) That he is not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; (10) That he defends the Constitution of the Philippines and is in favor of the form of government established by it; (11) That he is not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy; (12) That during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines he has mingled socially with the Filipinos, and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos; (13) That he has complied with the requirements of the law regarding the registration of aliens and the filing of a declaration of intention; (14) That he has never been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; and (15) That he has complied with the provisions of section five of this Act.

The provision bears on the case because it requires the petition itself to state a known lucrative trade, profession, or occupation, which the applicant's stated income failed to establish.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant had no lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. His own petition alleged an annual income of 1,800 pesos, which the Court found clearly insufficient to characterize his trade or occupation as lucrative. It noted that he began working only in April 1960, so that when he filed the petition on May 6, 1960, he had earned less than 306 pesos, and his total income for the year was no more than 1,350 pesos, or barely 112 pesos and 50 centavos a month. The Court also discounted the claim that his father's business paid him, given the relationship between them, and held that the earnings for 1961 and 1962, even if taken at face value, referred to events after the filing of the petition and did not offset the fact that, at the time of its presentation, the applicant lacked at least one of the requisite qualifications.

On the second issue, the Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the contention that the attesting witnesses were not credible persons, because the first ground alone already warranted reversal.

Doctrine

A petition for naturalization must allege and establish a known lucrative trade, profession, or occupation at the time the petition is filed. Income that is plainly insufficient, such as the 1,800 pesos a year alleged here, does not satisfy the requirement. Earnings that accrue only after the filing of the petition, and especially after the government has objected, cannot cure the defect, because the qualification is measured as of the date of filing. Testimony of employment with a close relative is viewed with suspicion and must be scrutinized as a possible attempt to conveniently meet the statutory requirement.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court, denied the petition for naturalization, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the lucrative income requirement is measured at the time of filing, and later earnings do not cure the defect. Examiners use this case to test the income qualification in naturalization and the rule that post-filing evidence cannot supply a missing qualification.