GR L 20375; (January, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20375 January 31, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF RAFAEL PE. RAFAEL PE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On October 18, 1958, Rafael Pe filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He alleged his residence as 989 Folgueras St., Tondo, Manila, and his average annual income as P1,800.00 from employment. The evidence showed he was born in Manila on October 23, 1936, resided continuously in the Philippines, finished his education in recognized schools, spoke English, Tagalog, and Chinese, was single, employed at Standard Commercial Enterprise Co., Inc., and possessed all other stated qualifications under the law. The lower court granted his petition on December 26, 1959. After the two-year period, on December 29, 1961, Pe moved to take his oath. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, opposed the motion on two grounds: (1) Pe did not have a lucrative income, and (2) the petition was fatally defective for failing to state all his former places of residence. The lower court denied the opposition and authorized the oath-taking on June 30, 1962, which Pe subsequently took. The Republic appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner has a lucrative trade or profession.
2. Whether the petition is fatally defective for failure to state all former places of residence.
3. Whether the lower court erred in issuing the order allowing the oath-taking and in not dismissing the petition.
RULING
1. No, the petitioner does not have a lucrative trade or profession. The Court held that the income at the time of filing the petition is the determining factor. Pe declared under oath an annual income of P1,800.00. His income tax returns showed his steady salary was P1,680.00 in 1959 and P1,920.00 in 1960, or not more than P200.00 a month. Additional income from bonuses and commissions was unsteady and unreliable. Considering the high cost of living, a single person with a monthly income of around P200.00 cannot be considered to have a lucrative trade or profession.
2. Yes, the petition is fatally defective. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires the petition to set forth both present and former places of residence. The evidence showed Pe had previously lived at San Fernando St., Binondo, Manila; his alien certificate of registration listed 821 Folgueras, Manila; and his native-born certificate listed 113 Elcano, Manila. These former residences were not stated in his petition, violating the express statutory requirement.
3. Yes, the lower court erred. Having found the petitioner lacked a lucrative income and filed a fatally defective petition, the Court reversed the decision granting citizenship, set aside the orders denying the opposition and authorizing the oath-taking, and declared the oath of allegiance null and void. The petition should have been dismissed.