Tan Te Buntiong, petitioner and appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
On March 6, 1961, Tan Te Buntiong, a Chinese national, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Davao. He alleged he was born in Davao City on January 12, 1927, and had continuously resided in Toril, Davao City. He lived with his wife, Ong No Ning, also a Chinese subject, and their five minor children, two of whom were enrolled at the Davao Chinese High School. The petition was silent on whether this school was government-recognized and not limited to any race or nationality, and whether it taught Philippine History, Government, and Civics. He stated his profession was as a merchant engaged in buying rice, corn, and native products, from which he derived an annual income of at least P6,000.00, and that he possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications for citizenship. Attached were affidavits from character witnesses Bayani D. Claudio and Blas Cunanan, who claimed to have known appellee since 1947 and vouched for his qualifications. After publication and hearing, the lower court granted the petition and admitted him to Philippine citizenship. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Davao erred in admitting Tan Te Buntiong to Philippine citizenship.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the application for citizenship. The Court held that appellee failed to meet the requirement of having a lucrative trade or profession. His own testimony indicated his annual net income from his business averaged about P7,000.00. The Court found this income, being contingent and dependent on various business factors, insufficient to support his wife and five children and therefore not lucrative. Furthermore, the testimony of character witness Bayani Claudio was deemed insufficient to establish appellee’s fitness for citizenship. Claudio testified that he did not know if appellee had ever been convicted of a crime or was a polygamist and only thought that appellee believed in the principles of the Philippine Constitution. This did not demonstrate the requisite personal knowledge to vouch for appellee’s moral character and adherence to constitutional principles.
