G.R. No. L-15795; June 20, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG DIT KUE alias ATCHAY ANG, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANG DIT KUE alias ATCHAY ANG, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.

FACTS

Ang Dit Kue alias Atchay Ang filed a petition for naturalization on May 31, 1958. He was single, born on June 17, 1936, in Bilaan, Jolo, Sulu, where he resided. He was employed as a bookkeeper with a monthly salary of P250 at the Wah Pin Pawn Shop from May 1, 1958, until it closed at the end of that year. From January 1, 1959, he was temporarily employed by his aunt in her sari-sari store at a monthly salary of P120. He did not file income tax returns. He could speak and write English and the Tausug dialect, finished elementary education at Jolo Central School and secondary education at Notre Dame of Jolo, never left the Philippines, mingled socially with Filipinos, expressed a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs, was not opposed to organized government, was not a polygamist, had no convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, had no incurable or contagious diseases, conducted himself properly, and believed in the principles underlying the Constitution. The lower court granted his petition. The Republic appealed, challenging the credibility of his vouching witnesses, Luisa Roldan and Tomas Paredo. In their joint affidavit, they claimed personal knowledge of the petitioner’s good repute and qualifications. However, in court, Roldan admitted she did not know the qualifications and disqualifications for naturalization, and Paredo’s knowledge was superficial, stating only that an applicant must not have committed crimes, violated laws, been a drunkard or gambler, and could vote.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Sulu erred in granting Ang Dit Kue’s petition for naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The vouching witnesses, Luisa Roldan and Tomas Paredo, were not credible persons within the meaning of the Naturalization Law. Roldan’s admitted lack of knowledge about the qualifications and disqualifications incapacitated her as a vouching witness. Paredo’s knowledge was merely superficial. The variance between their affidavit and court testimonies rendered them unqualified. Furthermore, the petitioner’s employment was not lucrative. His income of P250 per month was insufficient to meet the statutory requirement of a lucrative calling, as supported by precedents. His subsequent employment by his aunt was temporary, and his non-filing of income tax returns confirmed his low income. The likelihood of him becoming a public charge was not far-fetched, despite his savings and college education. Costs were imposed against the petitioner-appellee.