G.R. No. L-19914 June 23, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN SANG alias CHUA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. TAN SANG alias CHUA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Tan Sang alias Chua, a citizen of the Republic of China born on July 13, 1902, filed an application for naturalization on September 24, 1960, in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. He arrived in the Philippines on November 21, 1912, and had resided continuously in Cebu and later in Ozamis City since 1950. He is married with nine children, four of whom were unmarried minors at the time of the petition. His children were enrolled in schools recognized by the Government. Petitioner’s income was derived from his business, Sin Beng Trading, with an average annual income of P5,000.00 according to his testimony, and net incomes of P3,790.99 in 1960 and P4,779.75 in 1959 per his tax returns. His character witnesses were Maximo Lago, the City Treasurer, and Gregorio Calit, a BIR examiner who handled his business books. The Republic opposed the petition, and after trial, the lower court granted naturalization. The Republic appealed, raising issues regarding the declaration of intention, inclusion of the certificate of arrival, irreproachable conduct, lucrative income, and credibility of character witnesses.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention.
2. Whether the petition is invalid for non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival.
3. Whether petitioner’s conduct is irreproachable, given the lack of proof of his compliance with the Alien Registration Law for his minor children.
4. Whether petitioner has a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation.
5. Whether petitioner’s character witnesses are credible persons.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, continuous residence in the Philippines for thirty years or more exempts an applicant from filing a declaration of intention, provided the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in public or recognized private schools. Petitioner resided continuously since 1912 (over 48 years) and his children were enrolled in recognized schools.
2. Yes, the petition is invalid for non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law mandatorily requires the certificate of arrival to be included as part of the petition. Petitioner’s claim that the Bureau of Immigration took his certificate and issued an Immigrant Certificate of Residence in lieu thereof did not excuse compliance; he should have secured a certified copy.
3. Petitioner’s failure to prove compliance with the Alien Registration Law for his minor children is not unfavorable to his petition. Compliance with the Alien Registration Act is not a specific requirement to be established in naturalization proceedings, and the burden to prove non-compliance lies with the Republic.
4. No, petitioner does not have a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. His average annual income of P5,000.00, with net incomes of P3,790.99 (1960) and P4,779.75 (1959), was held insufficient to support himself, his wife, and nine children, following precedents where similar or higher incomes were deemed inadequate for smaller families.
5. No, petitioner’s character witnesses are not credible persons for vouching for his good moral character. The witnesses, Maximo Lago and Gregorio Calit, had only professional or business dealings with petitioner and lacked intimate personal knowledge of his character, which is required for such testimony.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization is denied, with costs against appellee.