G.R. No. L-19580 April 30, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FELIX TAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. FELIX TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Felix Tan, a subject of the Republic of Nationalist China, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. He was born in Dumaguete City on February 25, 1932, had never gone to China, was unmarried, and spoke and wrote English and Visayan-Cebuano. He acquired his education in public and private schools recognized by the government. He was employed as a salesman at the Sin Chu Huat Store in Dumaguete City, with annual salaries of P1,560 in 1958, P1,680 in 1959, and P1,740 in 1960, plus free subsistence and lodging valued at P50 a month. At the hearing in 1961, he claimed to be earning P180 a month. He had no real estate, paid his taxes, was in good health, had good moral character, and complied with other statutory requirements. The lower court found him qualified and ordered a naturalization certificate issued after two years upon compliance with Republic Act 530. The Republic appealed, contending the petitioner did not have a lucrative trade or profession.

ISSUE

Whether or not Felix Tan possesses a lucrative trade or profession, a qualification required for admission to Philippine citizenship.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for citizenship. The Court held that the petitioner’s employment was not lucrative. His highest annual salary was P1,740 in 1960, equivalent to P145 a month. Adding the estimated P50 value of free board and lodging resulted in a total monthly income of about P195. The Court defined lucrative employment as one providing an income with an appreciable margin over expenses to ensure adequate support during unemployment, sickness, or disability, thereby avoiding becoming a public charge. Given the high cost of living and the low buying power of the Philippine currency, the Court adopted a higher standard and found that the petitioner’s income was insufficient. The Court cited precedents (Koh Chet alias Hianchit S. Chua vs. Republic and Albert Ong Lin Chuan vs. Republic) where petitioners with similar or higher incomes were denied citizenship. The absence of opposition in the lower court did not preclude the Supreme Court from reviewing the record to ensure full qualification.