GR L 19579; (February, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19579 February 28, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF CHAN KIAT HUAT TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHAN KIAT HUAT, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Chan Kiat Huat, born in Amoy, China on January 6, 1919, arrived in the Philippines on May 15, 1925. He resided in Manila until 1953, then permanently moved to Bacolod City. He is married to Felipa Te, allegedly a Filipino citizen, and they have nine children. Eight of his children were enrolled at Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City, a school predominantly attended by children of Chinese parents. Petitioner is engaged in a wholesale business. His income tax returns showed a net income of P6,571.86 for 1960, the year he filed his petition for naturalization on January 31, 1961. In his petition, he stated Bacolod City as his only place of residence, omitting his prior residences in Manila and Umingan, Pangasinan.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioner’s annual net income of P6,571.86 constitutes a lucrative trade.
2. Whether petitioner possesses a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs and traditions, given his children’s enrollment in a predominantly Chinese school.
3. Whether petitioner’s failure to state all his former places of residence in his petition is a fatal defect.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. No, petitioner’s income does not constitute a lucrative trade. Considering the high cost of living, the low buying power of money, and his obligation to support his wife and nine children (eight of whom are schooling), his annual net income of P6,571.86 does not meet the legal standard of lucrative business. The Court is guided by his actual income at the time of filing his petition.
2. No, petitioner lacked sincerity. The enrollment of his eight children in a school predominantly attended by Chinese children shows a desire to preserve Chinese customs and traditions, rendering assimilation more difficult. This raises an inference that he has not evinced a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals, which is a disqualification.
3. Yes, the omission is a fatal defect. Section 7 of the Naturalization Act mandatorily requires a petitioner to set forth his present and former places of residence. Petitioner’s failure to state his prior residences in Manila and Umingan, Pangasinan, deprives the government of a fair opportunity to investigate his background and affects the court’s jurisdiction. This non-compliance is fatal to his application. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.