G.R. No. L-19578; October 27, 1964
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PEDRO T. UY alias DODONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. PEDRO T. UY alias DODONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Pedro T. Uy, a citizen of Nationalist China born and residing in Dumaguete City, filed a petition for naturalization. He presented evidence that he was married to a Filipina with whom he had three young children. His income was derived from his work as a salesman earning a monthly salary of P130 plus commissions averaging P40, and from operating seven pedicabs yielding a net average of P140 monthly. He also received free board and lodging from his employer. His wife had an independent income of P110 monthly from inherited coconut lands. To prove his good moral character, petitioner presented two character witnesses: the City Treasurer and the City Mayor of Dumaguete, who testified to knowing him since 1941 and attested to his qualifications.
The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental granted the petition. The Republic appealed, contending that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove his good moral character and that he lacked a lucrative income as required by law.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Pedro T. Uy has satisfactorily proven (1) his possession of good moral character and (2) his having a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation, as required for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 , the Revised Naturalization Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance of his good moral character. The character witnesses, despite their official positions, did not possess the requisite intimate knowledge of petitioner’s personal conduct and private life. Their acquaintance was limited to occasional business transactions in their public offices, which is an insufficient basis for gauging moral character. Jurisprudence requires that character witnesses must have such close association with the applicant as to enable personal observation of his conduct over the statutory period.
On the second issue, the Court found that petitioner did not have a lucrative income. His total annual income, including the estimated monetary value of free board and lodging, amounted to approximately P4,200. The Court applied prevailing precedents, noting that in Koa vs. Republic, an annual income of P5,980 was deemed not lucrative for a married applicant with three children, and in Tan vs. Republic, P6,300 was likewise insufficient for a married applicant with one child. Petitioner’s financial standing, therefore, did not meet the standard of being a potential asset to the country without becoming a liability. The separate income of his wife could not be considered, as the law requires the income to emanate from the petitioner’s own trade, profession, or lawful occupation. Consequently, petitioner failed to meet the stringent qualifications for naturalization.