LUIS SANCHO ALIAS GO GAM, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

This is a petition for naturalization filed, before the Court of
First Instance of Camarines Sur which, after hearing, was denied on the
ground that petitioner lacks some of the qualifications required by
law. In due time, he appealed.

Petitioner was born in Amoy, China on November 6, 1907. He arrived
in Manila in 1919 on board the vessel “S. S. TAN SING.” Three months
thereafter, he transferred to Guinobatan, Albay, where he stayed for
three years. In 1923, he went to Albay, Albay, where he stayed for two
years and began training, as a cook. Then he moved to Naga where he
worked as a cook. From 1926 to 1927, he worked as a laborer in some
government projects and from 1927 to 1929, he was employed as a “survey
boy” by the Manila Railroad Company. In 1930, he married Anselma
Abengosa, a Filipina, residing at Sipocot, Camarines Sur, where he has
continuously resided with his wife and their six children, who were all
born in Sipocot. These children have all studied in public or private
institutions recognized by the government.

Petitioner testified that his entire family, with the exception of
Milagros and Felicitas, who have elected to become Filipino citizens
upon reaching the age of majority, were registered with the Bureau of
Immigration and issued individual alien certificates of registration.
He is not opposed to. organized government, nor affiliated with any
group of persons or associations who uphold and teach doctrines opposed
to organized government. He does not believe in polygamy. In 1936, his
wife acquired a lot in Sipocot on which now stands a commercial
building and that the value of said property is more than P5,000.00.

Petitioner further testified that he had entrusted the management of
his business to his wife because he usually goes places and cannot
personally manage the business or take care of the books, and because
he was already quite old. His counsel submitted in evidence various
official receipts evidencing payment of business license fees and a
copy of income tax return for 1955 showing a net income of P606.58, all
in the name of his wife. He admitted in open court that he does not
understand English and showed his utter inability to write simple
sentences dictated by the trial court in English and in Bicol dialect.

Counsel contends that the lower court erred in holding that
petitioner does not own real estate in the Philippines worth not less
than P5,000.00, or that he has no known lucrative trade, profession or
lawful occupation, which served as one of the grounds for the denial of
his petition.

This contention is untenable, for while petitioner stated that his
trade or occupation is that of a merchant to which. he has been engaged
since 1938 and from which he derives an average annual income of more
than P6,000.00, and that he and his wife are owners of a commercial
building in Sipocot, Camarines Sur, worth not less than P5,000.00, no
evidence was submitted by him to support such allegations other than
his testimony to the effect that he worked as a cook, laborer and a
“survey boy” from 1923 to 1929 which is far from sufficient to show
that he had some lucrative trade or occupation as required by law. As a
matter of fact, he has not presented in evidence any income tax return
which would at least show that he has an average annual income of
P6,000.00 since 1938. It is true that he submitted the income tax
return filed by his wife for 1955 showing that they realized in that
year a joint net income of P606.58, but such amount is so meager as to
substantiate the claim that he had a lucrative trade or occupation.

On the other hand, petitioner’s claim that he owns a house and lot
worth more than P5,000.00 in Sipocot, Camarines Sur, is also untenable.
He testified that his wife acquired said lot in 1936 and that said
property with the building standing thereon is worth more than
P5,000.00, but no documentary evidence has been presented to support
his statement. As the trial court well said: “He did not present any
documentary evidence to prove that he owns a house and lot worth
P5,000.00. The best evidence on this matter would be the tax
declaration or the deed of acquisition of the property. His
uncorroborated oral testimony is not satisfactory.”

Even supposing that petitioner has a lucrative trade or occupation
or has property worth more than P5,000.00 as he claims, still he falls
short of being qualified, because the evidence is clear that he does
not know how to speak and write English and the Bicol dialect as
required by law. Thus, the trial court found that while he was able to
speak Bicol he cannot, however, write in said dialect, and he does not
know at all how to speak and write English. This was shown
when in open court he was asked by the court to reply to questions
propounded to him in English and he stated four times in Bicol that he
cannot understand English nor can he answer the questions propounded to
him. As a matter of fact, he was frank enough to admit that he does not
understand English.

The trial court, therefore, did not err in holding that he does not
possess the fourth and fifth qualifications required in Section 2 of
our Naturalization Law.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.