GR 20156; (December, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20156 December 29, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MANUEL TO alias MANUEL TOH TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. MANUEL TO alias MANUEL TOH, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Manuel To alias Manuel Toh filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City). He alleged he was born on June 6, 1937, in Cotabato, Cotabato, and resided in Pasay City since 1955. He is a single citizen of the Republic of China, speaks and writes English and Tagalog, and is employed by Elite Textile Company with an average annual income of P3,600.00. He claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention due to his Philippine birth and education in government-recognized schools. He asserted possessing all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Naturalization Law. The petition was supported by a joint affidavit from two character witnesses, Florencio M. Mauleon and William C. Limos. After publication, the trial court granted his petition on January 9, 1962. The Republic appealed, contending the petitioner lacked a lucrative occupation and that his character witnesses did not sufficiently know him.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner has a lucrative occupation as required by law.
2. Whether the character witnesses have sufficiently known the petitioner to attest to his proper and irreproachable conduct during his entire residence in the Philippines.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and denied the petition.
1. On the issue of lucrative occupation: The Court found the petitioner’s average annual income to be P2,600.00, not P3,600.00, as P1,000.00 of it was a bonus, which is indefinite and contingent and cannot be considered for determining lucrative income. This amount was deemed not lucrative given the high cost of living and low purchasing power. Lucrative employment requires an income with an appreciable margin over expenses to provide adequate support during unemployment, sickness, or disability, preventing the individual from becoming a public charge. Citing Tan vs. Republic, the Court had previously held that an unmarried man earning P300.00 a month plus a P1,000.00 annual bonus did not possess a lucrative income.
2. On the issue of character witnesses: The Court held that the attesting witnesses, who knew the petitioner since 1951 but only had contact through isolated meetings during vacation time, were not in a position to observe his behavior, character, beliefs, and social contacts sufficiently. Occasional meetings are inadequate to establish the petitioner’s proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence, as required by Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.