GR L 22207; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF NERIO TAN, also known as NERIO (BING) TAN, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. NERIO TAN, petitioner and appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellee.
FACTS
This is an appeal from an adverse judgment in a naturalization case. The petitioner, Nerio Tan, filed an application for naturalization stating his present place of residence as Garcia Hernandez, Bohol. The petition did not mention any former place of residence. However, it was established that he had stayed in Cebu City for three years to complete two courses: a one-year course for radio mechanic ending in March 1958 and a two-year course for radio operator ending in March 1960. At the time of his application, his known income consisted of an annual salary of P2,400.00 plus a commission of P600.00.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner’s failure to state his former place of residence (Cebu City) in his petition for naturalization is a fatal defect.
2. Whether the petitioner’s income at the time of filing the petition meets the lucrative income requirement for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment denying the petition for naturalization.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal. Section 7 of the Naturalization Law requires a petitioner to state his “present and former places of residence.” The term “residence” encompasses all places where the petitioner actually and physically resided. Cebu City, where petitioner studied for three years, is such a place of residence. The omission is fatal because information regarding the petitioner and objections to his application are likely to come from people in his actual, physical surroundings.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s income was not lucrative. For purposes of the Naturalization Law, the income to be considered is that which the petitioner had at the time of filing the petition. The commission of P600.00 was contingent and speculative and should not be included in reckoning income. Therefore, his income was limited to his annual salary of P2,400.00. By judicial standards, this income for a single petitioner was below the level of the lucrative, considering the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of money.
The Court found it unnecessary to discuss other points. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.