GR 27622; (July, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27622 July 31, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG CHIONG @ CHARLES ONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ONG CHIONG @ CHARLES ONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Ong Chiong alias Charles Ong, born in Amoy, China on August 16, 1932, was admitted into the Philippines on October 27, 1934. He is married to Anita Sy and has six children. Having resided continuously in the Philippines for more than thirty years, he was exempt from filing a declaration of intention. He is a graduate of the Mapua Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering and has been employed with the United Neon Light Company since 1963. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted his petition for naturalization. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision, raising several grounds, including the petitioner’s lack of lucrative income.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner possesses a lucrative income sufficient to qualify for naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law, considering his salary and other earnings in relation to his obligation to support his wife and six children.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the petitioner’s income was not lucrative. In assessing his income for the years 1963, 1964, and 1965, only his salaries (P4,800.00, P4,800.00, and P5,543.32, respectively) could be considered, after subtracting corresponding taxes. The bonus and commission items were excluded as contingent, unreliable, unstable, and undependable. The earnings from “tutoring by the wife” were also excluded from the determination of the husband-applicant’s income. With a wife and six growing children to maintain and educate, his salary alone was insufficient to provide adequately for his family’s decent needs. Citing Uy Ching Ho vs. Republic, where an income of P7,799.30 per year was held not lucrative for a petitioner with a wife and five children, the Court found the petitioner’s income far from lucrative. The petition was dismissed at petitioner’s cost.