G.R. No. L-20169; February 26, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF YU KIAN CHIE TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. YU KIAN CHIE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Yu Kian Chie, a citizen of the Republic of China, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila on February 4, 1960. In his petition, he stated his trade or profession as an employee since 1957, with an average annual income of P3,000.00. He attached the required affidavits of character witnesses, a Declaration of Intention, and a Certificate of Arrival. The Office of the Solicitor General filed an opposition, challenging the credibility of the character witnesses. The lower court granted the petition on December 18, 1961. After the Solicitor General perfected his appeal, but during the pendency of the approval of the record on appeal, the petitioner filed a “Motion to Reopen Case to Enable Petitioner to present Additional Documentary Proof of his Income,” claiming his income had risen to P5,100.00 in 1960 and P5,200.00 in 1961 due to salary increases and bonuses. The lower court granted the motion and rendered a “Supplemental Decision” on July 18, 1962. The Republic appealed both decisions, contending the petitioner failed to prove he had a lucrative income.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner, Yu Kian Chie, has sufficiently proven that he possesses a lucrative income as required for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove he had a lucrative income. The Court found that the petitioner’s true fixed salary was only P150.00 per month, with the rest of his claimed income consisting of allowances and bonuses that were contingent upon his employer’s profits and were not guaranteed. The Court noted these additional amounts were “purely contingent, accidental or incidental” and could not be reliably considered part of a stable, lucrative income. Furthermore, the Court expressed doubt about the veracity of the increased income claims, noting the employer did not present its books to substantiate the capacity to pay such amounts, and the raises coincided with the pendency of the naturalization case. Finally, the Court ruled that even if the petitioner later received a fixed salary of P400.00 a month in 1962, this amount could not be considered lucrative considering he had gotten married in 1961, thereby increasing his financial responsibilities.