G.R. No. L-20623, April 27, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. LAW TAI alias VICENTE LO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Law Tai, also known as Vicente Lo, a citizen of the Republic of China, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Romblon on January 14, 1961. He was born in Amoy, China on May 17, 1923, and first arrived in the Philippines on October 4, 1930. After less than a month in Manila, he resided in Laoag, Ilocos Norte for less than two years. In 1932, he returned to Amoy for less than four months. Upon returning, he stayed in Manila for about two months, then lived in Bacolod, Negros Occidental for four or five years. After liberation, he moved to Romblon, Romblon, his present residence. After two or three years in Romblon, he worked as a purser. He made two more trips abroad: to Amoy in 1948 with his wife, and to Hongkong to visit a sister. He married a Filipina on May 12, 1948, and they have six minor children. He is a merchant with an annual income of P5,499.58 at the time of his petition. The lower court granted his petition, but the Republic appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in granting Law Tai’s petition for naturalization.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition. The petition failed on three grounds:
1. Failure to File a Declaration of Intention: Petitioner claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 473, as amended, which applies to those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty years or more. However, his multiple absences from the country (to Amoy in 1932, again in 1948, and to Hongkong) interrupted the continuity of his residence. While the 1932 trip was short, the record did not establish the duration of the 1948 trip to Amoy and the trip to Hongkong. Petitioner failed to prove these absences were compatible with continuous residence, thus he was not exempt and his failure to file the declaration deprived the court of jurisdiction.
2. Failure to State Former Places of Residence: Petitioner’s application listed only Romblon, Romblon as his residence, omitting his previous residences in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, and Bacolod, Negros Occidental. This omission is fatal to a naturalization petition.
3. Lack of Lucrative Income: Petitioner’s annual income of P5,499.58, with a wife and six children to support, was not considered lucrative given the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of money, based on prevailing jurisprudence.