IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHAN PENG HIAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHAN PENG HIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR…

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila
denying the petition of appellant Chan Peng Hian to be allowed to take
his oath as citizen of the Philippines.

On July 8, 1960, decision was rendered in this case by the Court of
First Instance of Manila granting appellant’s petition for
naturalization as citizen of the Philippines. Over two (2) years later,
or on October 30, 1962, appellant moved that a date be set for the
reception of additional evidence as provided by law, and that,
thereafter, he be allowed to take the corresponding oath of allegiance.
Upon consideration of the evidence introduced on the date set therefor,
the lower court found that appellant has no lucrative occupation, and,
accordingly, issued the order appealed from.

The only issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the lower
court erred in finding that appellant had failed to prove that he is
engaged in a lucrative trade or profession. In this connection, His
Honor, the trial Judge, had the following to say:

“The applicant claims that he is employed as a
salesman of the Huan Hieng & Co.,—a partnership of which his father
is the principal partner, he having the largest contribution to its
capital, P46,369.73, as against the P39,414.36 contributed by the
third. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he has
satisfactorily established that he has a lucrative trade or profession.
In Civil Case No. 41364 of this Court, entitled Petition for
Naturalization of William Chua Siong Hua, this Court said: ‘It has been
uniformly held by the Supreme Court in its more recent decisions that
the requirement that the petitioner must have some known lucrative
trade, profession or occupation is not satisfied by evidence that he is
employed by close relatives, such as his parents, or in establishments
wholly or partially owned by them. In the language of the Supreme Court
in the case of Charm vs. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-14460, quoted in the opposition of the Solicitor General:

‘When
the employment of a petitioner for naturalization is by his father and
in the business of the latter such evidence of employment is not very
convincing, as it is possible that father and son, in the interest of
the petition, testify to the alleged employment even though the son may
only be living under the protection and at the expense of the father.
(Velasco vs. Republic, L-14214, May 25, 1960.)

In a more recent case, Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-17748, the same Court said:

‘* * * 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.’

The same rule has been followed in the cases of Justino O. Cu & Justo Dee vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-13344, July 21, 1962; Que Hoc Gui vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-16884, Sept. 30, 1961; Zacarias Tan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961; and Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic of the Philippines, 58 Off. Gaz. 5628.

“There
are other circumstances which prove that the petitioner’s employment is
more simulated than real. He avers he has been working as a salesman of
the Huan Hieng & Co. since April 1956, when he was barely 19 years
of age and was an engineering student in Mapua Institute of Technology
where he continued to be enrolled until his graduation in 1961. His
alleged initial salary was P2,370.00 a year. Touching on the
petitioner’s claim that he was employed in his father’s store when he
was 19 years of age and a student in the Mapua Institute of Technology,
this Court also said in Civil Case No. 41364: ‘It is hard to believe
that the owner of a business establishment would employ as his salesman
an inexperienced student, occupied in his studies, and give him the
liberal salary of P250.00 a month, a compensation which, in all
likelihood, he could not match in service or benefit because of his
youth, inexperience, and preoccupation with his studies’.

“The
Huan Hieng & Co. is a coffee and chocolate factory, and it sells
its products only wholesale. Its capital is P105,924.47. It has a
manager, and assistant manager, and another salesman. When asked to
name its customers, Chan was able to mention only four. His duties, he
said, are to attend to the customers by appraising them of the prices,
closing the deal if they agree thereto, and issuing the receipt for the
purchase made. To do these few simple tasks, it is unnecessary to
engage a high-salaried salesman when the company already has a general
manager, an assistant manager and a salesman, who, according to the
applicant also does his work, even if they have to attend to over four
customers a day.

“Chan’s compensation likewise reveals the
simulated character of his employment. The salary of P2,370.00 per
annum for the work he claims he does is manifestly unwarranted.
Excessive from the beginning, it still was steadily increased to
P3,510.00 in 1959, P3,600.00 in 1960 and P4,800.00 in 1961. Not only
was his salary raised but he was also given a bonus of P1,200.00 in
1961 and P4,000.00 in 1962. No reasons whatsoever has been given for
the increases. His duties have remained apparently the same. It is true
that income from the operation of the company rose from P41,000.00 to
P562,000.00 in 1961 and to P970,000.00 in 1962 but there has been no
proportionate increase in the net income accruing to the partners. It
was P9,321.73 in 1960, P16,304.31 in 1961, and P27,611.60 in 1962. The
applicant’s bonus of P1,200.00 in 1961 is only a little less than
one-half of the share of the income corresponding to the partner with a
contribution of P30,000.00 while his bonus of P4,000.00 for the next
year is almost twice as much as the same partner’s share of profit
(P2,435.66) for that year.

“There is reason for the granting
of simulated increases. As said in the same case of Petition for
Naturalization of William Chua Siong Hua: ‘Why simulated increases
should be granted is not difficult to divine. Recent pronouncements of
the Supreme Court have considerably increased the amount of income
necessary to meet the requisite of a lucrative trade or profession.
Since the rendition of those decisions, it has been noted that the
income or salary of applicants for naturalization has suddenly
increased, unaccompanied by any increase in their duties, the volume or
profits of the business of their employer. The conclusion cannot be
escaped that the increases are not real but merely paper increases,
designed to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court.’

“A
comparison of Chan’s remuneration with those of the other employees of
the firm similarly reinforces the conclusion that his employment is not
real. The manager and assistant manager, its two highest officials,
each receives P4,800.00 annually which is equivalent to the
petitioner’s salary and bonus in 1961 and less than his salary and
bonus the succeeding year by P4,000.00. The three Filipino employees of
the company, one of whom joined it even before he allegedly became a
salesman, receive the minimum compensation of P4.00 a day and it has
never been raised. One of them received a bonus expense of P120.00 and
the other P100.00 in the year 1962 and apparently none during the
previous years while petitioner, as already said, was paid a bonus of
P1,200.00 in 1961 and P4,000.00 in 1962.

“That he filed
income tax returns before and after the filing of his application is of
no decisive importance. Quoting once more from the case of Petition for
Naturalization of William Chua Siong Hua: ‘The income tax return is not
always a reliable evidence of employment or income. No inquiry is made
in every case for the purpose of determining whether the person filing
it is in truth employed or receives the income he claims he has. The
accomplishment of a return by one not employed may be made without much
difficulty, especially when the alleged employer is a close relative
who has exclusive control of his business, free to juggle its records
and funds to simulate the employment of any of his kins or the receipt
by him of any compensation that may be deemed necessary’.”

The records fully bear out the facts relied upon in the foregoing
observations. Moreover, the conclusions drawn by the trial Judge from
said facts are patently justified by logic and reason, as well as by
previous rulings of this Court. We cannot understand, therefore, why or
how, although leaving the matter to our sound discretion, the Office of
the Solicitor General could, as it does, in its brief, recommend that
petitioner-appellant be allowed to take his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.