GR L 24286; (April, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24286 April 25, 1968
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF CHUA BOK, CHUA BOK, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Chua Bok, a citizen of the Republic of (Nationalist) China and a merchant, filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental on June 24, 1963. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision, raising two main grounds: first, the petitioner’s failure to state his previous places of residence in his petition, and second, the petitioner’s lack of a lucrative trade or occupation.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner’s failure to state his previous places of residence in his petition for naturalization is fatal to his application.
2. Whether the petitioner possesses a lucrative income sufficient to support himself and his family, as required for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied the petition for naturalization.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to state previous places of residence in the petition is fatal. The petition only stated his residence as Sipalay, Negros Occidental. However, official documents (Alien Certificate of Registration, Immigrant Certificate of Residence, and his wife’s Alien Certificate of Residence) revealed a previous residence in Manila. The children’s documents also indicated a prior residence in Bacolod City. The Court cited jurisprudence, including Burca vs. Republic, emphasizing that the rule ensures information about the petitioner and potential objections are provided by people in his actual physical surroundings.
2. On the second issue, the Court found that the petitioner’s income was not lucrative. His petition claimed an average annual income of P4,359.28. His income tax returns showed net incomes of P2,960.47 (1961), P7,228.63 (1962), and P4,286.95 (1963), after excluding non-assessable items like bonuses and meal allowances. With a wife and three of his four children already studying to support, his income did not meet the required standard. The Court cited several cases where similar or higher incomes for applicants with families were deemed not lucrative.
Costs were imposed against the petitioner.