IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LORETO LEE ONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  LORETO LEE ONG, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-AP…

On April 11, 1960, Loreto
Lee Ong, hereinafter referred to only as Ong, filed a petition for natural­ization with the Court of
First Instance of Camarines Sur.  After the required publication and hearing in
connection therewith, said court rendered a decision denying the petition on
March 5, 1962.  Ong’s
motion for reconsideration filed subsequently having been denied, he interposed
the present appeal.

The evidence shows that Ong, a Chinese
citizen, was born on December 10, 1923 in Naga City, Camarines Sur, Philippines; an
Alien Certificate of Registration and a
Native Born Certificate of Residence was issued to him by the Bureau of
Immigration; since his birth he had not gone abroad and had continuously
resided in Naga City except for a brief period
during the Japanese occupation when he
and members of his family evacuated to the hinterland; he has two
brothers and three sisters, and his mother is still alive.

Ong presented evidence to show that he
was the Assistant Manager and Paymaster of the Venancio
Hard­ware owned by his brother, Venancio, with a
monthly salary of P200.00.  For reasons
stated hereinafter, we do not consider this evidence as convincing.

His evidence further shows that he had filed his Income Tax
Returns with net income ranging from P1,885.84 to P4,148.60 from the years 1952
to 1960; that he owns a building on a piece of land owned by a Chinese Com­mercial
Company, having paid the real estate taxes due thereon; that he is able to
speak and write English and the local dialect and is a believer in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that he is not opposed to
organized government, nor is he defending or teaching 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 does he believe in the practice of polygamy;
that he is free from any incurable
diseases and, in general, has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner in
relation to the government and the community in which
he lives.

In support of his appeal,
he claims that the trial court committed the
following errors:

“I.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
TWO CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTION IN
PETITIONER-APPELLANT’S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1952 AND 1955 ARE FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL.

II.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT FALSELY
AND ILLEGALLY REPRESENTED IN HIS INCOME TAX
RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1954 (EXHIBIT S-2) AS WELL AS IN HIS RETURN FOR THE
YEAR 1955 (EXHIBIT S-3) THAT HIS TWO SISTERS, ANASTACIA AND SALVACION WERE HIS
DEPENDENTS FOR WHOM HE COULD
CLAIM EXEMPTIONS.

III.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER-APPELLANT’S INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEARS 1958, 1959 AND 1960
(EXHIBITS G, G-1, G-2) REVEAL OTHER FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND
OMISSIONS COMMITTED TO REDUCE HIS INCOME TAX LIABILITY.

IV.

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN APPLYING THE CASE OF LIM SIONG
V. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
56 OFF. GAZ. 5041 AND THE CASE LAO LIAN SU, G.R. NO. L-15543.

V.

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NEW
TRIAL.

VI.

THE LOWER COURT
SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION.”

The briefs submitted by
both parties contain an extensive discussion of their respective points of view
in relation to the assignments of error bearing on the question of whether or
not Ong had falsely and illegally misrepresented
facts in his Income Tax Returns for the years
1954-1955, and 1958-1960.  We
believe, however, that to decide this appeal it is not really necessary to
resolve said issue.

After a careful consideration of the pertinent parts of the
record, we have come to the conclusion that Ong’s
evidence on his alleged employment as Assistant Manager and Paymaster of the Venancio Hard­ware, which is a business owned and controlled by his brother Venancio, is not convincing.  This particular kind of evidence is
frequently resorted to by persons applying for letters of citizenship because
it seems to be an easy way of proving alleged lucrative employ­ment.  For this reason, unless the evidence
presented to prove it as a fact is entirely free from doubt, we are not inclined to give it full credence.

But even on the assumption that Ong was
really employed by his brother in the latter’s business, it seems clear that
his income therefrom does not constitute what,
according to the standard set by this Court, is an income derived from a
lucrative employment, because his own evidence shows that he was receiving no
more than P200.00 as a monthly salary. 
On the basis of this amount, we cannot accept Ong’s
claim that he was employed in a gainful or lucrative occupation even in the
light of the standard of living prevailing in the year 1960 when he filed his
petition for naturalization.

Another circumstance that makes Ong’s
case doubtful is his contention that he had a net income ranging from P1,885.84 to P4,148.60 from the year 1952 to the year 1960, in
spite of the fact that he was only earning P200.00 monthly.  On the other hand, there is no evidence of
record showing that, aside from this monthly salary, he had other sources of
income.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision being in accord­ance with
the facts and the law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.