GR L 20019; (February, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20019 February 26, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. LORENZO GO alias LORENZO CHUA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Lorenzo Go alias Lorenzo Chua filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental on November 16, 1960. In his petition, he stated his income was P150.00 per month. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment granting the petition. The court found that the petitioner was born in Ozamiz City on November 14, 1949, had continuously resided there, was single, and had been employed as a salesman since May 1960, receiving an annual salary of P1,800.00. The court declared him entitled to acquire Philippine citizenship. The Republic appealed the decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner’s income of P1,800.00 annually (P150.00 monthly) qualifies as a lucrative income as required by the Naturalization Law.
2. Whether the petitioner duly proved his ability to speak and write English and one of the principal Philippine languages.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and declared the petitioner not qualified to acquire Philippine citizenship.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that an income of P150.00 per month for an unmarried applicant is not lucrative and substantial within the meaning of the Naturalization Law, considering the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso. The Court cited precedent, including Ong v. Republic, which ruled that even P250.00 per month was not a lucrative income.
2. On the second issue, the Court found that the records did not show the petitioner could speak and write any of the principal dialects of the country. No questions in any dialect were propounded to him to demonstrate such knowledge. The absence of this proof fatally affects his right to citizenship, as the burden is on the applicant to prove all qualifications.
Costs were imposed against the petitioner-appellee.