GR L 19110; (July, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19110 July 30, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANTONIO YU TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANTONIO YU, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Antonio Yu, a citizen of Nationalist China, filed a petition for Philippine citizenship in the Court of First Instance of Masbate on June 26, 1957. He was born in Masbate, Masbate, on February 10, 1929, and resided in Palanas, Masbate, until 1941. He then moved to Manila to pursue his studies and was employed as assistant manager of Gung Ho Bakery with a monthly salary of P180.00. He resigned in 1957 to establish a watch repair shop in Manila, from which he derived an annual income of P2,400.00. He resided in Manila with his wife and two children, first at 240 Chica St. and later, as of January 1959, at No. 354 Craig, Sampaloc, Manila. He can speak and write English and the Visayan dialect. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the trial court’s judgment granting his application.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition given the petitioner’s residence.
2. Whether the petitioner had a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation.
3. Whether the petitioner failed to allege all his former places of residence as required by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate and dismissed the petition for citizenship.
1. On jurisdiction: The Court held that the petition should have been filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, not Masbate. Although petitioner was born in Masbate, he had moved his residence to Manila since 1947 for employment and business, thus failing to comply with the residency requirement under Section 8 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended.
2. On lucrative income: The Court found that petitioner’s annual income of P2,400.00 was not lucrative for a married man with two children, based on its repeated rulings.
3. On allegation of residences: The Court found that petitioner failed to disclose in his petition that he had resided at two different places in Manila prior to filing, aside from his residence in Palanas, Masbate.