G.R. No. 24335. November 18, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. HO NGO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.
CASTRO, J.:
On June 22, 1960 the Court of First Instance of Manila in civil case
4208,[1]
rendered judgment granting the
petition for naturalization of Ho Ngo. On
June 27, 1963 Ho filed a motion to be allowed to
take oath as a Filipino citizen. After a hearing on the motion, the
Republic of the Philippines
filed an
“opposition end motion to dismiss petition”. The court denied Ho’s motion in its order of December
15, 1964.
Hence this appeal.
The order of December
15, 1964 is unassailable.
1. Ho’s petition for naturalization is
fatally defective.[2] It does not state his previous places of
resident, namely, Alabat, Tayabas
(now Quezon), no. 13 9 de Febrero,
Mandaluyong Rizal, and 1240 Rizal
Avenue, Caloocan,
Rizal. This
defect, affecting as it does the
very jurisdiction of the lower court,[3]
may be raised in issue at any stage of the proceedings – at the hearing on the petition for naturalization or at the
hearing on the motion to be allowed to take oath as a Filipino citizen.
2. In the publication of the petition, Ho’s
aliases, “Wong Sing” and “Cheng”, which he was using
without judicial authority in violation of the Anti-Alias Law, were
omitted. This omission adversely affects
the validity of the naturalization proceedings, constitutes a serious
impediment to the grant of naturalization,[4]
and impairs the jurisdiction of the lower court.[5]
3. The petitioner
does not have a lucrative or gainful employment. His income tax returns for 1960-1963, a
period of four years, show a total income of P36,235. Deductible therefrom,
not forming part of lucrative income, is the amount of P4,200
which he received as bonus.[6]
This, leaves a balance of P32,035.00. He had,
therefore, an average annual income of P8,008.00, or
an average monthly income of about P667.
With a wife and eight children to support, six of the latter in
school, five of them enrolled in the Holy Child Catholic School in Tondo, Manila, the petitioner’s income can meet only the bare necessities
of life. For an employment to be
considered lucrative or gainful, it
“must be shown
that the employment gives one an income such that there is an appreciable
margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide or
adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work
and thus avoid one’s becoming the object of charity or a public charge.”[7]
(emphasis supplied)
The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of
the family and works at the Great Eastern Hotel and at the Holsum
Foods Inc. at an average of 15 hours a day, with scarcely enough time for rest
and sleep. Should he fall ill because of
deterioration of his health, he, his wife and children could become public
charges or the objects of charity.
The preceding disquisition makes it unnecessary for us to pass
upon the other errors imputed to the lower court.
ACCORDINGLY, the order a quo of December 15, 1964 is affirmed, at
petitioner’s cost.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
“Ho Ngo, petitioner vs. Republic of the Philippines,
Government-oppositor.”
[2]
Dalmacio Cheng vs. Republic, L-20013, March 30, 1965; Tai vs.
Republic, L-19418, Dec. 23, 1964.
[3]
Ao San vs. Republic, L-21128, Aug. 19, 1967, and the cases therein cited.
[4]
Celerino Yu Seco vs.
Republic, L-13441, June 30, 1960.
[5]
Ang Tee Yee vs. Republic, L-20305, March 31, 1965.
[6]
Bonus does not come up to the category of
lucrative income, being purely
contingent, accidental or
incidental; it springs from the purely voluntary actuations of an employer; it
is conditioned to the circumstance that the latter was making profit.
(Yu Kian Chie vs.
Republic, L–20169, Feb. 26, 1965).
[7]
Felix Tan vs. Republic, L-19580,
April 30, 1965.