GR L 21778; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHAN PENG HIAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHAN PENG HIAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner-appellant Chan Peng Hian’s petition for naturalization was granted by the Court of First Instance of Manila on July 8, 1960. Over two years later, on October 30, 1962, he moved to set a date for the reception of additional evidence and to be allowed to take the oath of allegiance. After considering the evidence presented, the lower court found that appellant did not have a lucrative occupation and denied his motion. Appellant claimed to be employed as a salesman by Huan Hieng & Co., a partnership where his father was the principal partner with the largest capital contribution. The trial court found his employment to be more simulated than real, noting he started at age 19 while still a student, his duties were simple, his salary and bonuses were excessive and increased without justification compared to other employees, and his employment was with a close relative.
ISSUE
Whether or not the lower court erred in finding that appellant had failed to prove that he is engaged in a lucrative trade or profession.
RULING
No, the lower court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the petition to take the oath. The Court upheld the trial judge’s findings and conclusions that the appellant’s employment was not genuine but simulated to satisfy the statutory requirement for naturalization. The circumstances, including employment by his father in the family business, his young age and student status when employed, the simplicity of his duties, the disproportionate and unjustified increases in his salary and bonuses compared to other employees and business profits, and the control his father had over the business records, all supported the conclusion that he did not have a known lucrative trade, profession, or occupation as required by law. The Supreme Court cited previous rulings that employment by close relatives requires more satisfactory proof to eliminate suspicion of a convenient arrangement for naturalization purposes.