G.R. No. L-17670 June 23, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHING CHONG ANG TAN TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHING CHONG ANG TAN, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.

FACTS

Ching Chong Ang Tan filed a petition for naturalization on September 1, 1959, in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. He alleged being a citizen of Nationalist China, born on July 16, 1921, in Chingkang Fookien, China, who arrived in the Philippines on October 2, 1935. He claimed continuous residence for 23 years, first in Kinuguitan, Oriental Misamis, and later in Tanauan, Batangas. He was employed as Assistant Manager of the New Philippine Lumber Company, married to a Filipino citizen, Dionisia M. Padilla, and had two children. He declared an average annual income of approximately P6,000.00 from his employment and asserted he possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under Commonwealth Act No. 473 . His petition included affidavits from character witnesses Modesto Castillo and Pedro Gonzales. Before the hearing, witness Modesto Castillo died. The court granted petitioner’s motion to substitute him with Mariano Castillo without requiring a new publication. The Republic, through the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, opposed the petition, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to republish after the substitution of a character witness as required by law. After trial, the lower court granted the petition for naturalization on September 6, 1960. The Republic appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner, Ching Chong Ang Tan, has sufficiently proven that he is engaged in a lucrative occupation, a requirement for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 .

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied the petition for naturalization. The Court found the petitioner’s claim of a lucrative occupation to be insufficient. His declared annual income of P6,000.00 consisted of a fixed salary of only P150.00 per month (P1,800.00 per annum) from his position as Assistant Manager, with the remainder being alleged profits from his partnership in the New Philippine Lumber Company. The Court ruled that such contingent profits do not constitute a stable or assured income. Following established jurisprudence, the Court held that an applicant relying on contingent profits cannot be considered to be engaged in a lucrative occupation as required by the Naturalization Law. The decision was reversed, with costs against the petitioner.