IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, VICENTE TIU TUA PI, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Vicente Tiu Tua Pi versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a naturalization case. Vicente Tiu Tua Pi asked the courts to declare him a naturalized Filipino citizen, and the Republic of the Philippines opposed him. The case matters because it shows how strictly the Supreme Court reads the requirement of a lucrative income for a naturalization applicant, and because it teaches that commissions are not counted as income for that purpose. It is a short decision, but it is a favorite of examiners because the rule is clean and easy to test.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed his petition for naturalization on April 29, 1961. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, sitting as a naturalization court. The lower court found for the petitioner and declared him a naturalized Filipino citizen. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed. The appeal went directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the lower court.

Facts

Vicente Tiu Tua Pi was twenty two years old and single when he filed his petition. He stated in the petition that his average annual income was 1,500 pesos, presently increased to 2,400 pesos per annum. He added that he enjoyed free board and lodging, with a little allowance for representation and traveling expenses as the occasion demands. He was the assistant manager of Nanding Candy Station in Iloilo City.

At the trial, in what the Court called an eleventh hour effort to beef up his income, he claimed that he was also an insurance agent for Baranda Associates. He listed his commissions as follows: 2,520 pesos for 1959, 2,570 pesos and 75 centavos for 1960, and 1,870 pesos and 20 centavos for 1961. These commissions appeared in his income tax returns for those years, but he filed those returns only on July 5, 1962, after the trial had already commenced.

The lower court believed him and granted the petition. The Republic appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner proved that he has a lucrative income, as required of an applicant for naturalization.
• Whether or not commissions earned as an insurance agent may be counted as income for purposes of a naturalization petition.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text. It applies the requirement of lucrative income under the naturalization law, and it relies on prior jurisprudence on what counts as income. The Court states the rule in its own words:

Even so, commissions are not considered as income for purposes of the present petition - they are contingent and speculative.

This rule bears directly on the case because the petitioner's only attempt to raise his income above his modest salary rested on insurance commissions.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner does not meet the requirement of lucrative income. The Court said that citation of authorities is unnecessary to show this point. His salary of 1,500 pesos, increased to 2,400 pesos per annum, with free board and lodging and a small allowance, was simply not enough.

On the second issue, the Court refused to count the insurance commissions. It first doubted the evidence itself, because the income tax returns reflecting the commissions were filed only on July 5, 1962, after the trial had commenced, and the Court said this evidence does not command respect. But the Court went further and laid down a rule of law: commissions are not considered as income for purposes of the petition, because they are contingent and speculative. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised in the Republic's brief, because the income requirement alone was enough to defeat the petition.

Doctrine

An applicant for naturalization must prove a lucrative income. That requirement is not satisfied by a modest salary, even when supplemented by free board and lodging and a small allowance. Commissions are not counted as income for purposes of a naturalization petition, because they are contingent and speculative. Income tax returns that are filed only after trial has begun, and that are offered to bolster an income claim at the last minute, do not command respect. A bar answer should state these rules plainly and tie them to the Court's own language that commissions are contingent and speculative.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, denied the petition for naturalization, and taxed the costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line that commissions are not considered as income for purposes of a naturalization petition because they are contingent and speculative. Examiners use this case to test the lucrative income requirement, and to see whether you will treat speculative earnings as qualifying income.