GR L 20372; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20372; May 14, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BENJAMIN YAP alias UY WEI KIM TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. BENJAMIN YAP alias UY WEI KIM, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Benjamin Yap alias Uy Wei Kim filed a petition for naturalization. He was born in Cebu City on September 8, 1934, a citizen of the Republic of China, and has resided in the Philippines since birth. He is single, employed since 1957 at San Su Trading (owned by his uncle), starting with a monthly salary of P200, increased to P300 in 1962. In 1959, he became a partner in the same firm with a P15,000 capital share. He filed and paid income tax returns for 1959-1961. He received free board and lodging worth P50 monthly from the firm. He completed elementary and secondary education at Cebu Chinese High School and was a first-year commerce student at Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos at the time of hearing. He can speak and write Visayan and English. He presented evidence claiming to possess all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Naturalization Law. The Solicitor General appealed the lower court’s decision granting the petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Cebu erred in granting Benjamin Yap’s petition for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition. The Court held that: (1) appellee’s character witnesses, Vicente P. Tantuico and Florencio Campos, were not credible as they were not unbiased due to their connections with San Su Trading, and their testimonies did not show they had close enough relations with appellee to adequately observe his character and behavior; (2) appellee did not have a lucrative trade or occupation as of the filing of the petition on December 29, 1960, when his salary was only P200 per month, which is not considered lucrative even with free board and lodging, and the addition of his alleged share in the partnership’s net profits (either P1,514.62 per his tax return or P100.00 per his testimony) did not alter this conclusion.