G.R. No. L-19082 September 29, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CASIANO KING, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Casiano King, born in Manila on August 13, 1933, and a citizen of Nationalist China, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He presented evidence that he was a sales supervisor with an annual income of about P10,000.00, married to a Chinese national, and had one child. He claimed to possess all qualifications under the Revised Naturalization Law, including good moral character and conduct. His petition was supported by affidavits from two character witnesses, Angelina Baluyut and Dr. Jose Velasco. The lower court denied his petition on August 29, 1961, on the ground that these two witnesses did not sufficiently prove that petitioner had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the character witnesses presented by the petitioner are qualified to attest that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, as required by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the character witnesses must have known the petitioner during his entire period of residence in the Philippines to qualify as “insurers of the latter’s conduct and behaviour.” Since the witnesses came to know petitioner only in 1939 and 1947, while petitioner has been residing in the Philippines since his birth in 1933, they were not in a position to vouch for his irreproachable conduct for the entire period required by law. Additionally, the Court found that petitioner lacked a lucrative occupation. For determining whether an occupation is lucrative, bonuses and commissions are contingent, speculative, and precarious and must be excluded. Excluding his P5,000.00 bonus and commission, his remaining income was insufficient to be considered lucrative for a married applicant with one child to support, based on prior jurisprudence.