GR L 33817; (July, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33817 July 25, 1974
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROSAURO JOSE TIONG ALSO KNOWN AS JOSE CHUA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ROSAURO JOSE TIONG also known as JOSE CHUA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner-appellee Rosauro Jose Tiong, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization. He was born in Manila, later resided in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, and was single. He was employed as a salesman at the San Jose Trading Store with an annual salary of P3,000.00, from which he gave his parents P150.00 every two months. His educational attainment was up to third year high school at Mapua Institute of Technology.
The Court of First Instance granted his application for naturalization in its decision dated January 28, 1971. The Republic of the Philippines appealed, contending that the petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirement of having a lucrative income, as his annual earnings amounted only to P250.00 per month.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner possesses a lucrative income as required by law to qualify for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the legal requirement of having a “lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation” under Section 2, paragraph 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 .
The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence defining “lucrative income.” Citing Ong v. Republic and Lim Biak Chiao v. Republic, it emphasized that lucrative employment is not merely gainful or sufficient for basic necessities. It requires an income with an appreciable margin over expenses to provide adequate support during unemployment, sickness, or disability, thereby preventing the individual from becoming a public charge. Furthermore, the financial condition must allow the applicant and his family to live with reasonable comfort and in accordance with prevailing standards of living and human dignity.
Applying this strict standard, the Court found the petitioner’s monthly income of P250.00, from which he still shared a portion with his parents, to be clearly insufficient. Considering the high cost of living, such an income could not reasonably be considered lucrative. The lower court thus erred in glossing over this mandatory statutory requirement, even if motivated by sympathy. Naturalization laws must be strictly construed in favor of the state, and all conditions, including that of a lucrative income, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.