G.R. No. L-20810 May 16, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. ALFONSO PO CHU KING, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Alfonso Po Chu King filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. He alleged he was born on July 18, 1936, in Iligan City, resided in Ozamis City since 1945, was single, 25 years old, and a citizen of Nationalist China. He claimed to speak and write English and Cebu-Visayan, was a businessman and stockholder of Po Sun Que Sons Corporation with an annual income of about P3,000, and was exempt from filing a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines and graduated from high school at Ozamis Chinese School. He asserted he possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Naturalization Law. The petition was supported by joint affidavits from character witnesses Maximo Lago and Filemon Tan. After publication and hearing where the government filed no formal opposition, the lower court granted the petition on July 28, 1962. The Solicitor General appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner was exempt from filing a declaration of intention.
2. Whether the petitioner possessed lucrative employment.
3. Whether the evidence from the character witnesses was sufficient.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. On the first issue, the Court held the petitioner was NOT exempt from filing a declaration of intention. The petitioner failed to mention in his petition the primary school he attended and failed to prove that the schools he attended (Hope Christian High School/Chia-Nan School for primary and Ozamis Chinese School for high school) were recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality at the time he was enrolled. The burden was on the applicant to show this. Furthermore, the evidence to prove his birth in the Philippines (his own testimony, affidavits of his mother and brother, and his alien certificates) was considered hearsay and unsatisfactory, with no birth certificate or explanation for its absence presented. Since he failed to establish his exemption and did not file the required declaration of intention one year before his petition, the grant of naturalization was erroneous.
2. On the second issue, the Court held the petitioner did NOT have a lucrative trade or profession. His 1962 income tax return showed a net income of P2,814.74, of which P1,000 was a bonus. Contingent income like bonuses is indefinite and unsteady and cannot be considered in determining lucrative income. Thus, his dependable yearly income was only P1,814.74, which was not considered lucrative even for a single person.
3. On the third issue, the Court held the evidence from the character witnesses was INSUFFICIENT. Their joint affidavit and testimony merely reiterated conclusions (e.g., that he was “good” or “law-abiding” and would make a good citizen) without providing specific factual instances to support these conclusions. Such opinion evidence is entitled to no weight.
Costs were awarded against the petitioner-appellee.