G.R. No. L-20712 February 28, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. TAN KING BOOK, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant

FACTS

Petitioner Tan King Book, born in China, applied for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. He claimed to have arrived in the Philippines in 1929, resided there continuously for almost 32 years, and was employed and a part-owner of the Misamis Soap and Candle Factory. He declared an annual income of around P5,000.00, combining his salary and share of profits. He stated he was married to Wong Soi Tee, residing in Hongkong, with no children. The lower court found him qualified and granted his petition. The Republic appealed, assigning three errors: (1) the lower court erred in not granting a motion for new trial for cross-examination; (2) it erred in finding the petitioner married to Wong Soi Tee when records indicated a wife named Uy See Teh; and (3) it erred in granting the petition despite the petitioner’s lack of lucrative income.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in not granting the motion for a new trial.
2. Whether the petitioner satisfactorily established the fact and identity of his marriage.
3. Whether the petitioner possessed a lucrative trade or profession as required by law.

RULING

1. On the first assignment of error: The Supreme Court found it without merit. The record showed the City Fiscal was, in fact, given the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner and one character witness.
2. On the second assignment of error: The Supreme Court found merit. The petitioner failed to establish by satisfactory evidence the fact of his marriage and the identity of his spouse. In his petition and testimony, he claimed marriage to Wong Soi Tee in Hongkong. However, his Alien Certificate of Registration listed his wife as Uy See Teh of Amoy, China, and his income tax returns listed Uy See Tee. No evidence was presented to show that Wong Soi Tee and Uy See Teh/Uy See Tee were the same person, or that his wife had moved from Amoy to Hongkong. The petitioner never visited his alleged wife in over 32 years of residence in the Philippines. This failure to clearly establish marital status and spouse identity constitutes a fatal impediment to naturalization, casting doubt on his moral character and irreproachable conduct.
3. On the third assignment of error: The Supreme Court also found merit. The petitioner’s only steady, reliable income was his annual salary of about P2,500.00 (approximately P208.00 monthly). His additional income from business profits was not shown to be steady. An annual income of P2,500.00, even for a single person, was held insufficient to constitute a lucrative trade or profession. Considering his claim of having a wife residing in Hongkong—where the cost of living is high—an income of P5,000.00 would still not be considered lucrative.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner. The naturalization law must be strictly construed, and doubts resolved against the applicant.