G.R. No. L-22437 June 21, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES FRANCISCO LIM alias ELIS LIM, petitioner and appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Lim alias Elis Lim, born on October 10, 1939, in Bacuit (now El Nido), Palawan, applied for naturalization. He lived in Palawan with his parents until 1954, then transferred to Manila where he finished high school at Mapua Institute of Technology in 1958. In 1961, he was employed with Manila Advertising Company and Acme Mill Supply. His petition was supported by two character witnesses: Vicente M. Rodriguez, a supervising nurse at Muntinglupa Prisons Hospital, and Bernardo Dangan, a former bookkeeper/accountant at the Bureau of Prisons who retired and returned to El Nido in 1961. Rodriguez knew petitioner since birth but resided in Muntinglupa, Rizal from 1946. Dangan was a resident of El Nido but lived in Muntinglupa from 1950 to 1961. Both witnesses claimed to have maintained contact with petitioner through visits in Manila and Muntinglupa. The trial court denied the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s two character witnesses are credible within the meaning of the Naturalization Law.
2. Whether petitioner possesses a lucrative income as required by Section 2, Fourth, of the Naturalization Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for naturalization.
1. The character witnesses were not credible. For a long period (since 1946 for Rodriguez and 1950 for Dangan), they resided in Muntinglupa, far from petitioner’s residence in El Nido and later Manila. This separation meant they lacked a sufficient basis to vouch for petitioner’s character and conduct throughout his entire residence in the Philippines. Their claimed occasional visits were insufficient for intimate knowledge of petitioner’s conduct and were deemed not credible due to the wide age disparity (petitioner was 24, Rodriguez 62, and Dangan 48), suggesting no common interest for frequent social contact. Furthermore, witness Dangan demonstrated a lack of requisite knowledge by incorrectly stating petitioner’s father’s name (Lim Kim instead of Lim Te) and admitting he had not read the Revised Naturalization Law, thus disqualifying him from competently testifying about petitioner’s qualifications and disqualifications.
2. Petitioner did not possess a lucrative income. At the time of application, his income consisted of a monthly salary of P240.00 and annual commissions of P3,755.01. Commissions are contingent and speculative and thus excluded from the calculation. His income was therefore only P240.00 per month, which, considering the high cost of living and low purchasing power of the peso, was below the judicial standard for being lucrative, especially for a single applicant.