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

Manuel Yu appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
denying his petition for naturalization on the ground that he does not have a
lucrative lawful occupation.

The following appears from appellant’s evidence: He was born of Chinese
parents in Manila on March 22, 1934 and is at present residing with his mother,
a widow, at 1319 Soler Street. Still single at the time of the trial, he has
continuously resided in the Philippines, never leaving the country except for a
short vacation in China while still a child. He is registered with the Embassy
of the Republic of China as a citizen thereof (Exhibit H); and has the
corresponding certificate of registration (Exhibit K) and immigrant certificate
of residence (Exhibit J) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.

Appellant speaks and writes Tagalog and English (Exhibit M). He finished his
elementary education at the Chinese Republican School, Magdalena St., Manila;
his high school education at the Quezon College, Manila; and a semester of
commerce at the Mapua Institute of Technology (Exhibit N-1).

The evidence likewise shows that appellant believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he has conducted himself in a
proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in
the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as with
the community in which he is living; that he has mingled socially with the
Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace their customs,
traditions, and ideals; 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, nor does he defend or teach the
necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the
success and predominance of men’s ideas; that he is not a polygamist nor a
believer in the practice of polygamy; that he has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude, and has not been charged with the commission of
any offense (Exhibits O; 0-1 to 0-9 and 0-11); and that he is not suffering
front mental alienation or any incurable contagious disease (Exhibit P). The
nation of which he is a subject grants by law to Filipinos the right to become
naturalized citizens thereof, and is not at war with the Philippines.

From appellant’s evidence it seems that except for the lack of lucrative
employment, he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen.

It is alleged that appellant is earning P1,440.00 annually as sales
representative of the Victory Steel Chair Factory, 1319 Soler St., Manila, which
is owned by his mother, Ong Kim. As evidence of this allegation appellant relies
on his own testimony as well as on his mother’s sworn written statement to that
effect, which, however, was not testified to by her when she took the witness
stand to verify the date and place of his birth. Where the applicant for
naturalization claims to be employed by either of his parents he must submit
more satisfactory proof than has been adduced herein that he is actually
employed and worth the salary he is receiving, in order to eliminate any
suspicion that his parents have employed him only as a convenient arrangement to
satisfy the statutory requisites for naturalization.

But granting that appellant earns P120.00 monthly, he cannot be said to have
a lucrative trade or occupation. Such amount is not sufficient (Lo Chicombing
vs. Republic, 111 Phil., 428; Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic, 111 Phil., 488; Tan vs.
Republic 112 Phil. 131) in view of the present high cost of living and the low
purchasing power of our currency (Sy Piñero vs. Republic, L-17399, October 30,
1962). Invoking the case of Lim vs. Republic, 92 Phil., 522; 49 Off. Gaz. [1]
122, appellant asserts that the free board and lodging, worth P60.00 monthly,
furnished by his mother-employer, should be added to his monthly salary in cash
in order to arrive at his correct earnings. Even then, a monthly income of
P180.00 will not qualify him, since even the amount of P250.00 has been
considered not lucrative for purposes of naturalization (Ong vs. Republic,
L-15764, May 19, 1961).

The decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.
B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.