IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF ONG CHIAN SUY, ONG CHIAN SUY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

On petition for
naturalization.^[1] The trial court found that petitioner
Ong Chian Suy possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications set forth in the Revised Naturalization Law.

The Republic appealed.

On two grounds the judgment must be reversed.

First, the petition states that petitioner’s present place
of residence is San Roque, Iriga, Camarines
Sur, and one other former place of residence – Amoy,
China.  But petitioner testified that he also
“stayed in Naga
City” and “attended
school in Tabaco,” Albay
where he “finished second year high school.”^[2] Naga City
and Tabaco are, therefore, two places of petitioner’s former
residence.  Section 7 of the Revised
Naturalization Law requires that a petition for naturalization state
petitioner’s “present and former places
of residence.” Residence contemplated in Section 7 “encompasses all
places where petitioner actually
and physically resided.”^[3] The philosophy behind the rule
requiring recital in the petition of
former places of residence is that “information regarding petitioner and
objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual,
physical surrounding.”^[4]
The established jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is that failure to allege a
former place of residence is fatal.^[5]

Second.  The
petition avers that petitioner, a merchant, has “an average annual income
of P5,000.00, more or less.” His income tax return for 1960^[6]
records a net income of P5,593.75.  For
1961 (he filed his application for naturalization on March 28, 1961), he
estimates his net income to rise to “around P6,000.00.”^[7]
Petitioner’s witness Felix G. Corporal, however, in answer to a question by the
court, declared: “[h]is (petitioner’s) income is around P2,000,00 a
year.”^[8]
His other witness, Rufino S. Llagas,
also testified that: “[i]n one of our
conversations, I happened to ask him (petitioner) and he said that by now his
income is around P2,000.00.”^[9]
Petitioner has a wife and three (3) minor children to support.  Therefore, whichever version we consider, the
fact remains that petitioner cannot be regarded as one with a lucrative income.^[10]

The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed, and the
petition of Ong Chian Suy for Filipino citizenship is hereby denied.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Ruiz
Castro, J.J., concur.

^[1]
Naturalization Case No. 141, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, entitled
“In the Matter of the Petition for Naturalization of Ong
Chian Suy.”

^[2]
T.S.N., February 9, 1962, pp. 14, 16.

^[3]
Tan vs. Republic, L-22207, May 30, 1966, citing Qua vs. Republic, L-19834, October 27, 1964.

^[4]
Qua vs. Republic, supra.

^[5]
Tan vs. Republic, supra.

^[6]
Exhibit M.

^[7]
At the time he testified on February 9, 1962, his income tax return was still in
the process of preparation. T.S.N., February
9, 1962, p. 5.

^[8]
T.S.N., December 15, 1961, p. 18.

^[9]
T.S.N., December 15, 1961, p. 40.

^[10]
See cases cited with approval in Law Tai vs. Republic, L-20623, April
27, 1967.