G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953
In the matter of petition for naturalization of FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO. FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Francisco Ang Veloso, born in Manila on October 10, 1927 to Chinese parents, appealed the denial of his application for naturalization by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower court denied his petition on two grounds: first, that he had not been engaged in a profitable business, and second, that the court doubted his ability to speak and write Tagalog. Regarding his income, the court noted that although he alleged being a merchant since 1945 with an annual income of P3,600, he had only filed an income tax return for 1950, admitting his business was not profitable enough in prior years to require a return. His 1950 return showed his income as “commissions” and a net business income of only P180.40, leading the court to conclude he might be a mere commission agent or employee, not engaged in a lucrative trade. Furthermore, his residence certificate listed his occupation as a student. At the time of the hearing in February 1951, he was attending the School of Commerce of Santo Tomas University. On the language requirement, during a test, the applicant wrote a statement in Tagalog expressing his desire to become a Filipino. However, in another test, he translated “Love of country” into “Pag-ibig ng magulang” (Love of parents), which the lower court found deficient.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly denied Francisco Ang Veloso’s application for naturalization on the grounds of lacking a lucrative trade/profession and insufficient ability to speak and write a principal Philippine language.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision and granted the application for citizenship. On the first issue, the Court found the applicant possessed the required occupational qualification. Even assuming he was a commission agent or employee, this constituted a “known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation” under the law. His enrollment in a commerce course at a reputable university further indicated he would not become an economic burden. The notation “student” on his residence certificate did not preclude him from having an occupation, as evening classes accommodate working students. On the second issue, the Court held the applicant’s knowledge of Tagalog satisfied the legal requirement. He had lived in Manila all his life and studied in schools where he associated with Tagalog speakers. A university dean and professor attested to his proficiency in conversing in Tagalog, and his written Tagalog statement (Exhibit 1) demonstrated competence above the minimum requirement. Citing prior cases, the Court ruled that an applicant need not be proficient or fluent; it is enough to have sufficient knowledge to understand and be understood. His erroneous translation of “Love of country” was not fatal, as the phrase is seldom used in ordinary conversation, and his translation was metaphorically not inaccurate.