GR L 24023; (May, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24023, May 8, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PESSUMAL BHROJRAJ TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, PESSUMAL BHROJRAJ, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Pessumal Bhrojraj, born in India, immigrated to the Philippines around 1917. He filed a petition for naturalization on September 18, 1961. The State opposed. The Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte granted his petition on July 7, 1963. The State appealed. The petitioner claimed continuous residence in the Philippines for 44 years. However, his testimony revealed he had visited India four times (in 1919, 1923, 1938, and 1948), with each absence lasting five to seven months. He did not file a declaration of intention to become a citizen. His petition stated his trade was “merchant” with an average annual income of P6,000. His 1960 income tax return showed a net annual income of P2,097.43. He had a wife and four children to support, with three children studying. He testified that his two elder sons gave him a monthly pension totaling P400.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner complied with the continuous residence requirement and the mandatory filing of a declaration of intention.
2. Whether the petitioner possessed a known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation as required by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition for naturalization.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s multiple absences from the Philippines (four trips to India, each lasting five to seven months) were incompatible with the requirement of “continuous residence.” Following Sy See vs. Republic, such absences shifted the burden to the petitioner to prove they did not break continuity, which he failed to discharge. Consequently, he was required to file a declaration of intention one year prior to his petition, which he did not do. This failure was a fatal defect that deprived the court of jurisdiction and rendered the proceedings null and void.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the petitioner did not have a lucrative income. His actual net income of P2,097.43 (per his 1960 return) was insufficient to support his wife and four children. The P400 monthly pension from his sons could not be added to his income for assessment purposes, as such support was contingent, speculative, and precarious. Even if added, the total annual income of P6,897.43 was still not considered lucrative for a married man with four children, considering the cost of living. The petition’s allegation of a P6,000 income was also insufficient on its face to meet the lucrative requirement.