GR L 20194; (July, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20194; July 17, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, JAMES UY, also known as UY KHE KHUN, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
James Uy, also known as Uy Khe Khun, a citizen of Nationalist China, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila. He alleged he was born in Manila on September 20, 1939, was single, and had resided continuously in the Philippines for at least fifteen years. He claimed his occupation was as an employee with a monthly salary of P180.00, and that he owned capital stock in Uy Su Bin and Co., Inc., inherited from his father, yielding annual cash dividends of P1,660.00 since 1953, plus cash savings of P10,000.00. He claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention due to being born in the Philippines and having received his primary and secondary education at De La Salle College. The Solicitor General filed an opposition. After trial, the lower court denied his application.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly denied James Uy’s application for naturalization.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the application. The denial was based primarily on three grounds: First, the petitioner did not have a lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. The Court found his employment, secured only one month before filing his application with a family-controlled company (Uy Su Bin and Co., where his uncle was president and manager), to be a mere fictitious arrangement designed to tokenly comply with the law. Even considering his claimed salary and dividends, his annual income was insufficient to be considered lucrative, citing the precedent in Keng Giok where an annual income of P8,687.50 was held insufficient. Second, the petitioner used an alias (“Uy Khe Khun”) without lawful authority, as evidenced by entries in the Stock and Transfer Book and a certificate of stock showing he was known by that alias within his own family. Third, there was insufficient evidence of his irreproachable conduct during his entire residence. Given these conclusions, the Court found it unnecessary to address other issues. The decision was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.