G.R. No. L-14460; June 30, 1960
In the Matter of The petition for Philippine Citizenship, CHARM CHAN alias ALAM, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Charm Chan alias Alam, a citizen of the Republic of China born in Canton on October 11, 1933, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Romblon on September 2, 1957. He arrived in the Philippines in 1937 and has continuously resided in San Fernando, Romblon. He is a graduate of San Fernando Elementary School and Philippine Harvardian College (high school) and was a fourth-year law student at the Manuel L. Quezon School of Law at the time of his petition. He claims employment as a cash collector and business agent for his father, Elias R. Chan, since July 13, 1954, earning P200 a month. The mayor and a councilor of San Fernando testified to his good moral character and reputation. The lower court granted his petition, finding he possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The Republic appealed, represented by the Solicitor General.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner possesses all the qualifications to become a Filipino citizen, specifically regarding having a lucrative occupation.
2. Whether the petitioner complied with the mandatory requirement of attaching a certificate of arrival to his petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s decision and DENIED the petition for naturalization.
1. On the Qualification of Lucrative Occupation: The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove he had a lucrative occupation. His claimed employment as a collector for his father’s copra business was deemed not real or actual but fictitious, conceived to satisfy the law. The Court found the circumstances unconvincing: the father’s annual profit (P2,266.40) was less than the petitioner’s alleged annual salary (P2,400); remittances for copra sales in Manila could be made without a collector; and the employment, being within the family business, was susceptible to fabrication for the petition’s sake.
2. On the Mandatory Requirement of a Certificate of Arrival: The Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which require the petitioner to establish lawful entry for permanent residence and to attach the certificate of arrival to the petition. The petitioner admitted in his declaration of intention that his “Certificate of arrival or landing certificate of residence were lost on account of the last war” and did not attach any such certificate to his petition. The Court ruled this provision is mandatory to prevent aliens who entered surreptitiously from acquiring citizenship. The petitioner’s claim of loss was insufficient, as he could have secured a certified copy from the Collector of Customs, with no evidence presented that such records were destroyed.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is reversed, and the petition for naturalization is denied, with costs against the petitioner.