G.R. No. L-25608, August 31, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHOA TION CHONG alias BON CHING TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHOA TION CHONG alias BON CHING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

FACTS

The petitioner, Choa Tion Chong alias Bon Ching, a citizen of the Republic of China, was born on March 29, 1915, in Chinkian, Amoy, China. He arrived in Manila in 1926 at age 12. He initially stayed with his father in Manila before establishing legal residence in Rosario, Cavite. He completed primary education at Rosario Elementary School. On June 5, 1943, he married Gloria Alcantara, a Filipina, at the Roman Catholic Church in Rosario, Cavite, and they had four children: Gloria, Lilia, Nilda, and Johnny. At the time of the hearing, the first three were studying at various schools, while Johnny, being mentally retarded, did not attend school. Petitioner worked as the manager of Mabuhay Lumber in Rosario, Cavite, claiming an average annual income of more than P7,000. Two witnesses, Faustino Solis and Cenon Araw, testified to his good moral character. The Republic appealed the lower court’s decision granting naturalization.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Cavite erred in granting the petition for naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision and dismissed the petition for naturalization on three grounds:
1. Failure to state all former places of residence: The petition only listed Rosario, Cavite, as petitioner’s residence. However, in his sworn statement before the National Bureau of Investigation (Exhibit 12-L), he stated he also resided in Hermosa, Bataan, from 1956 to 1958. This omission affects the court’s jurisdiction.
2. Use of aliases without judicial authority: The petition published the name “Choa Tion Chong alias Bon Ching.” The record showed he was baptized “Alfonso Dy Chua” (Exhibit LL-I), which also appeared in his marriage contract (Exhibit LL). The use of the alias “Bon Ching” without judicial authorization violated Commonwealth Act No. 142 . Additionally, the omission of the baptismal name “Alfonso Dy Chua” from the petition and publication was fatal.
3. Lack of lucrative income: Although petitioner alleged an average annual income of more than P7,000, his 1961 income tax return showed only P6,000. His testimony indicated a monthly salary of P500, which was insufficient to support himself, his wife, and four children, and thus not considered lucrative for naturalization purposes.
The decision appealed from was reversed, and the petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded.