GR L 22372; (March, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22372; March 31, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION OF CHUA TEK alias “SENANDO TAN”. CHUA TEK alias SENANDO TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Chua Tek, alias Senando Tan, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, which was granted. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision, opposing the grant of citizenship on several grounds. The evidence showed that appellee’s annual income was claimed to be P6,000, but his income tax returns for 1959 and 1960 reported lower net incomes of P3,701.36 and P5,191.31, respectively, and he claimed tax exemption on the ground that his personal exemptions exceeded his net income. He has a wife and seven children, all of school age. The petition also revealed he used the alias “Senando Tan,” and the record further showed he used other names or aliases—Sisenando Tan Chua Tek, Chua Tek Tan, Sisenando Nadres, and Sisenando Nadres Tan—without securing the requisite judicial authority. Additionally, two of his children, Rosa and Concepcion, were initially enrolled in the Tayabas Sun Yat Sen School, a school mainly for Chinese or children of Chinese descent, though they were later transferred to a public school during the pendency of the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in granting Chua Tek’s petition for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The Court held that appellee did not have a lucrative income, as even an annual income of P6,000 was insufficient to support his wife and seven school-age children given the high cost of living. Furthermore, appellee’s use of multiple aliases without judicial authority violated Commonwealth Act No. 142 . Lastly, the initial enrollment of his children in a Chinese school demonstrated a lack of sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs and traditions, which is essential for naturalization. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the other grounds raised by the appellant. Costs were imposed on appellee Chua Tek.