GR L 20809; (August, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20809 August 31, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM ENG YU, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Lim Eng Yu filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. He was born in China on October 10, 1920, arrived in the Philippines on August 15, 1959, and resided in Toboso, Negros Occidental. He is married to a Chinese woman and has two children enrolled in a local elementary school. He is a high school graduate and can speak English and Ilongo. The trial court granted his petition. The Republic appealed, raising errors regarding publication, lucrative income, and the paternity of his children. The Supreme Court, however, found additional grounds for denial not initially raised by the Solicitor General.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, Lim Eng Yu, possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 (The Revised Naturalization Law).
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the lower court and DENIED the petition for naturalization. The Court found that the petitioner failed to meet several mandatory requirements of the law:
1. Lack of Lucrative Income: The petitioner’s income tax returns for 1958, 1959, and 1960 showed net incomes of P2,453.36, P3,392.00, and P2,654.87, respectively. The Court held that this average annual income of P2,834.08 was not lucrative considering the high cost of living and his obligation to support a wife and two children. His attempt to recalculate his income by adding sundry expenses and depreciation to his declared net savings was rejected as an afterthought to evade tax liability, which also cast doubt on his moral character.
2. Failure to Prove Property Ownership: The petitioner’s claim of owning property worth over P5,000 was not substantiated by credible evidence like a certificate of assessment or tax receipts. Only his own testimony and that of a character witness supported this claim.
3. Defective Petition: The petition was not accompanied by his certificate of arrival as required by Section 7 of the Naturalization Law. His submission of an immigrant certificate of residence in lieu thereof did not constitute compliance with this mandatory requirement.
4. Lack of Credible Character Witnesses: One of his character witnesses, Francisco Arias, was employed by the petitioner as his bookkeeper. The Court ruled that such a witness could not testify with the necessary independence and was therefore not a “credible person” as required by law to act as an insurer of the petitioner’s character.
The Court emphasized that in naturalization cases involving public interest, it may scrutinize the entire record for disqualifications even if not raised on appeal.