G.R. No. L-17918; November 28, 1962
TE ENG LING, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Te Eng Ling, a citizen of Nationalist China born in Iloilo, filed a petition for naturalization. He completed his education in the Philippines, earning a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. He was employed at the Far Eastern Furniture and Hardware in Iloilo City, receiving a daily wage of P4.00, with free laundry, board, and lodging. His average monthly income was calculated at P104.00. He presented evidence of good moral character, no criminal record, and compliance with tax obligations.
The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition on two primary grounds. First, it contended that petitioner’s income of P104.00 per month did not constitute a lucrative or gainful occupation as required by the Naturalization Law, especially given the high cost of living. Second, it alleged that petitioner used different names, having enrolled in school as “Ramon L. Te” but filing his naturalization petition under the name “Te Eng Ling,” which could mislead the public. The trial court granted the petition, prompting the government’s appeal.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether petitioner possesses a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation as required for naturalization; and (2) Whether petitioner’s use of different names disqualifies him from naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner’s income of P104.00 per month, even with additional allowances, was not lucrative. Citing its consistent jurisprudence, such as Velasco v. Republic, the Court emphasized that the financial requirement must be assessed in light of the current high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso. An income deemed insufficient to provide a measure of economic security fails to meet the statutory standard of a “lucrative occupation.”
On the second issue, the Court found petitioner’s use of multiple names to be a significant flaw. By using “Ramon L. Te” in his academic records and “Te Eng Ling” in his naturalization petition, he created a discrepancy that could confuse the public and potentially forestall opposition. This conduct demonstrated a lack of the candor and straightforwardness required of an applicant seeking the privilege of Philippine citizenship. Consequently, the Court concluded petitioner was unworthy of naturalization. The decision was reversed, with costs against petitioner.