G.R. No. L-13347; August 31, 1961
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF KENG GIOK TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. KENG GIOK, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Keng Giok, born in China, arrived in the Philippines in 1930 and continuously resided therein, filing a petition for naturalization. He presented evidence of his qualifications: he was married with five children, all studying in a recognized school; he had a clean police record; he conducted himself properly; and he possessed a sincere desire to embrace Philippine customs. He was employed as the manager of the Cosmopolitan Jewelry Store, with annual incomes of P11,350.00 in 1954, P9,074.50 in 1955, and P8,687.50 in 1956, from which he supported his family and paid his taxes.
The trial court denied his petition on two primary grounds. First, it found that Keng Giok failed to state all his former places of residence in his petition, as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. While he declared his present address as 814 Ongpin Street, Manila, the record showed he had previously resided at 713 Ongpin, 706 Ongpin, and 428 Batangas Street, none of which were listed. Second, the court expressed doubt that his income from employment, which was declining annually, constituted a “lucrative trade” sufficient to decently support his wife and five school-age children, considering the high cost of living.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied Keng Giok’s petition for naturalization based on his failure to comply with the statutory requirement of listing all former residences and on the insufficiency of his income.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial. The legal logic rests on strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Revised Naturalization Law. Regarding the omission of former residences, Section 7 explicitly requires the petition to set forth both present and former places of residence. This requirement is not a mere formality but is designed to facilitate thorough investigation into the petitioner’s qualifications and moral character by indicating the specific localities where inquiries should be made. By omitting his prior addresses at 706 Ongpin Street and 428 Batangas Street, Keng Giok failed to satisfy this mandatory condition. This omission, coupled with discrepancies found in his residence certificates for the same year, indicated a lack of the candor and good moral character required for naturalization.
Concerning the income requirement, the Court agreed with the trial court’s assessment. For a petitioner with a family to support, a “lucrative trade” under Section 2 of the law means an income that is not only substantial but also stable, ensuring the petitioner will not become a public charge. Keng Giok’s sole source of income was his salary, which demonstrably declined from P11,350 in 1954 to P8,687.50 in 1956. Supporting a wife and five dependent children in Manila on this diminishing income raised legitimate doubt about its sufficiency. The cases cited by the appellant involved unmarried petitioners without dependents and were thus inapplicable. Consequently, the petitioner failed to prove conclusively that he possessed all the statutory qualifications, warranting the denial of his application.