IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROBERTO ONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of La Union,
Hon. Jose P. Flores, presiding, finding Roberto Ong, qualified for
naturalization as citizen of the Philippines, as he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino
citizen.

In his appeal the Solicitor General claims the applicant does not possess the
qualifications for Philippine citizenship because he failed to prove that he
owns properties worth P6,000, as alleged in his petition, and because he lacks a
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.

An examination of the record discloses that in his petition filed on March 1,
1958, he declared that he is a fourth year high school student eligible for
graduation in March, 1958. Perhaps, finding that the facts would not qualify him
for naturalization, he filed an amended petition on April 22, 1958, claiming
that he was a salesman in a rice and furniture store which belongs to his
family, from which he derives an income of P130.00 a month, and that he has
property worth P6,000.00. His supposed employment is corroborated by his
sister’s unsworn statement to the effect that he is actually receiving a salary
of P130.00 a month since April, 1958. The fact that the applicant was graduated
only in March, 1958 and admitted being a student in Manila in the first semester
of the school year 1958-59 contradict his supposed employment in his sister’s
store since April, 1958. Apart from the fact that the statement of the sister
regarding his supposed salary is not under oath and is furthermore hearsay, the
evidence of his supposed employment is so flimsy and unbelievable as to merit no
credence in a court of justice. Besides, we have held in a line of decisions
that an applicant earning less than P250.00 a month is not considered as
possessing the necessary lucrative trade or profession, in view of the present
high cost of living. (Swee Din Tan vs. Republic, 109 Phil., 287, Republic
vs. Lim, L-3030, January 31, 1951; Pang Kok Hua vs. Republic, 91
Phil., 254).

As to his statement that he has real property worth P6,000, no credible
evidence was presented in support thereof. We have only his own testimony to
that effect. He declared that the only property he has is a residential house,
which evidently is the house where he and his parents live and which should
belong to the latter. If he is the owner of real property, he would have been
able to present the corresponding tax declaration thereof in his name, or the
tax receipts thereof, and he would have been able to explain how he acquired the
same.

For the foregoing considerations, we find that even If the petitioner
possesses the other qualifications, he has failed to prove that he has a
lucrative trade or profession or that he has property of a substantial amount,
within the contemplation of Section 2, par. 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law
(Commonwealth Act No. 473.)

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition for
naturalization dismissed, with costs against the
petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ.,
concur.