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

Ong Chian Suy versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for naturalization filed by Ong Chian Suy, a merchant, asking the courts to confer Filipino citizenship upon him. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition and, when the trial court granted it, brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it shows how strictly the Supreme Court reads the Revised Naturalization Law: two defects alone — an incomplete recital of former residences and an income that is not lucrative — were enough to defeat an otherwise favorable judgment. For the bar candidate, it is a compact lesson in the exacting qualifications for naturalization.

Procedural History

The petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. After trial, that court found that the petitioner possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications set forth in the Revised Naturalization Law, and granted the petition. The Republic, as oppositor, appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court in this decision, which reversed the judgment below.

Facts

Ong Chian Suy filed his petition for naturalization on March 28, 1961. In the petition, he stated that his present place of residence was San Roque, Iriga, Camarines Sur, and that his one other former place of residence was Amoy, China. He described himself as a merchant with an average annual income of 5,000 pesos, more or less.

At trial, however, the petitioner himself testified that he had also stayed in Naga City and had attended school in Tabaco, Albay, where he finished second year high school. These two places, Naga City and Tabaco, were therefore former places of his residence that the petition never mentioned.

On his income, the evidence was inconsistent. His income tax return for 1960 recorded a net income of 5,593.75 pesos. For 1961, he estimated that his net income would rise to around 6,000 pesos. But his own witness, Felix G. Corporal, told the court that the petitioner's income was around 2,000 pesos a year. His other witness, Rufino S. Llagas, testified that in one of their conversations the petitioner said that by then his income was around 2,000 pesos. The petitioner had a wife and three minor children to support.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for naturalization must state all of the petitioner's former places of residence, and whether failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal to the petition.
• Whether or not the petitioner possesses a lucrative income within the meaning of the Revised Naturalization Law, considering the conflicting evidence on his earnings and the family he must support.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as quoted in the decision, requires the petition to state the petitioner's residences:

Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires that a petition for naturalization state petitioner's "present and former places of residence."

This provision bears directly on the first issue, because the Court treats the recital of every former place of residence as a mandatory requirement of the petition.

The decision also states the rule on income, which the Court applies to the second issue:

The fact remains that petitioner cannot be regarded as one with a lucrative income.

This formulation ties the second issue to the requirement of a lucrative income, measured against the petitioner's actual earnings and the dependents he must support.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was defective. Section 7 requires the recital of the petitioner's present and former places of residence, and the Court explained that residence within the meaning of that section encompasses all places where the petitioner actually and physically resided. The philosophy behind the rule, the Court said, is that information regarding the petitioner and objections to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surroundings. Since the petitioner admitted staying in Naga City and attending school in Tabaco, Albay, both were former places of residence that the petition failed to allege. The Court declared that the established jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is that failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner did not have a lucrative income. His petition claimed an average annual income of 5,000 pesos, more or less, and his income tax return for 1960 showed a net income of 5,593.75 pesos, while he estimated his 1961 net income at around 6,000 pesos. Yet his own witnesses testified that his income was around 2,000 pesos a year. Weighing these versions, the Court concluded that whichever version is considered, the petitioner cannot be regarded as one with a lucrative income, especially since he had a wife and three minor children to support.

Doctrine

First, a petition for naturalization must allege the petitioner's present and former places of residence, and residence for this purpose encompasses all places where the petitioner actually and physically resided. The failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal to the petition, because the recital enables the people in the petitioner's actual surroundings to furnish information and to object to the application.

Second, the petitioner must prove a lucrative income. Where the evidence shows earnings too modest to support the petitioner and his dependents, the requirement is not satisfied, and naturalization must be denied.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment appealed from and denied the petition of Ong Chian Suy for Filipino citizenship, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: failure to allege a former place of residence in a naturalization petition is fatal. Examiners use this case to test the strict completeness of the petition under Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law and the requirement of a lucrative income measured against the applicant's actual earnings and dependents.