G.R. No. L-21179 January 22, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. MARIANO NG also known as MARIANO UY, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Mariano Ng, alias Mariano Uy, a Chinese citizen, was born in Manila on September 8, 1932. He filed an amended petition for naturalization on November 22, 1961. At that time, he was married to Sy Gui Tuna and had two minor children. He was employed as a sales manager at his brother’s Aluminum Basin Factory, receiving a monthly salary of P500.00 and a year-end bonus. His total earnings for 1961 were P6,680.00 (P6,000.00 salary and P680.00 bonus). To establish his good moral character, petitioner presented two witnesses: Juvenal Catajoy, who first knew him in July 1951, and Ceferino Zodiacal, who first knew him in 1948. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the petition for naturalization on January 23, 1963. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner’s character witnesses were competent to vouch for his proper and irreproachable conduct for the entire period of his residence in the Philippines as required by law.
2. Whether the petitioner had a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation at the time of filing his petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. On the issue of character witnesses: The Court ruled that the witnesses were not competent to establish the petitioner’s proper and irreproachable conduct for his entire period of residence. Petitioner had resided in the Philippines since his birth in 1932. However, his witnesses only came to know him in 1948 and 1951, respectively. Following precedents (Chua Pun vs. Republic and Dy Tian vs. Republic), the law requires evidence of proper conduct during the entire period of residence. The witnesses could not testify about his conduct from the time he became responsible for his acts (around 1941, upon reaching the age of discernment) until 1948. Petitioner’s own assertion was insufficient to establish this vital fact.
2. On the issue of lucrative income: The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have a lucrative income. For determining lucrative occupation, bonuses are excluded as they are indefinite and unsteady (Tse vs. Republic). Therefore, only the annual salary of P6,000.00 (P500.00/month) was considered. Citing Tan vs. Republic, an annual income of P6,300.00 for a married applicant with one child was held not lucrative. Petitioner, being married with two children, similarly lacked a lucrative income. Even if the P680.00 bonus were included, making a total of P6,680.00, it would still not be considered lucrative given his family obligations, as supporting a second child would require at least an additional P1,000.00 per year (based on the additional income tax exemption allowed under Republic Act 2343). The financial capacity is determined as of the time of filing the petition (Ong Tai vs. Republic).