GR L 21762; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21762; April 29, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEON C. SO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEON C. SO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On August 31, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga granted Leon C. So’s application for naturalization. On July 10, 1962, he moved to be allowed to take his oath. At the hearing, he testified he worked as a sales clerk at S. So & Sons Grocery Store, owned by his widowed mother, with a salary of P300 a month. He was married with six children. The court doubted the sufficiency of his income to constitute a lucrative trade or profession and ordered his oath-taking held in abeyance on October 1, 1962, pending proof of substantial means. On motion for reconsideration, So presented an alleged contract (Exhibit M) with his mother, dated October 25, 1962, increasing his salary to P900 a month effective November 1, 1962. The lower court, also considering him a co-owner of a 384-square-meter land in Angeles, Pampanga, found he had proven substantial means and issued an order on November 18, 1962, authorizing him to take his oath. However, the trial judge had already administered the oath on November 17, 1962. Upon the Government’s motion, the oath and certificate of naturalization were ordered cancelled on December 29, 1962. The Republic appealed, contending So lacked lucrative employment.
ISSUE
Whether Leon C. So possessed a lucrative trade or profession to qualify for taking the oath of Philippine citizenship.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and denied the motion to take the oath. The Court found the contract (Exhibit M) increasing So’s salary from P300 to P900 a month was made solely to adjust his evidence to meet the legal requirement, given his employer was his mother and no explanation was given for the sudden trebling of his salary. Regarding the land, the finding of co-ownership was contrary to So’s own testimony that it was bought by and belonged to his mother, and she alone received its income. Even assuming it was conjugal property, So’s share would be less than 14 square meters, with no evidence of its value or that the estate had no unpaid obligations. The record did not justify the conclusion that So was a co-owner or that his interest in the land indicated compliance with the qualification. Therefore, So failed to prove he had a lucrative trade or profession.