G.R. No. L-28541 - In Re: Lim Biak Chiaovs. Republic of the Philippines
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-28541 January 14, 1974
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM BIAK CHIAO,petitioner-appellee,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,oppositor-appellant.
Ramiro V. Garilao for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero and Solicitor Jaime M. Lantin for oppositor-appellant.
FERNANDO,J.:
The merit of this appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from a lower court decision of October 17, 1966 which, after reciting that petitioner, now appellee, Lim Biak Chiao, possessed all the qualifications, and none of the disqualifications for citizenship and that he had complied with all the requirements of the law, granted his plea for naturalization subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, is rather obvious. In the brief filed for appellant Republic of the Philippines by the then Solicitor General, now Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, the two principal errors assigned were that the lower court erred in not dismissing the petition, lacking as it did any allegation that petitioner was a person of good moral character and failing as he did to establish that he had a lucrative income.1
As to the lack of the requisite allegation that petitioner is a person of good moral character, it was set forth in such brief: "Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473 requires that the petition for naturalization should specify the qualifications possessed by an applicant. One of the qualifications required under Section 2 of said Act is that the applicant must be a person of good moral character. This particular qualification is not alleged in the petition at bar ... . The failure to allege it as required by law calls for a dismissal of the naturalization petition."2In the other principal error assigned as to his failure to establish that he had a lucrative employment or occupation, it was therein stated: "Petitioner's petition, which was filed on December 14, 1964, stated that petitioner's average annual income was P5,000.00 more or less, ... . Petitioner's income tax returns presented at the trial show that in 1962 his net income was P2,644.03; in 1963, P3,746.87; and in 1964, P6,988.46 ... . Aside from himself, petitioner had to support his wife and children. In 1962, he had one child (Edmond Yu Lim) ; in 1963 he had two children (Edmond Yu Lim and Benzon Yu Lim); in 1964 he had three children (aside from the two was Juvy Yu Lim). We submit, the income of petitioner during these three years, considering the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the peso, did not meet the requirements of lucrative employment or occupation within the meaning of our Naturalization Law ... ."3It could be a consciousness on the part of appellee that the lower court's decision was legally indefensible that resulted in his not filing any brief, notwithstanding in his being granted an extension of fifteen days to do so.
That is why, as set forth at the opening sentence, the Republic is entitled to a reversal.ℒαwρhi৷
1. To assert that any alien, one desirous of joining the ranks of Filipino citizens, has the inescapable duty of satisfying every requirement of the Naturalization Act4is to assert the undisputed and indisputable. To the state belongs the exclusive competence of determining on who shall be conferred that eagerly sought privilege. It follows then that it may prescribe the conditions that much be fulfilled, the steps that must be taken, and the allegations that a petition for naturalization must contain.<äre||anº•1àw>There must be a faithful compliance with every requirement. Otherwise consequences fatal in character as far as the petition is concerned would result. So it has been since the leading case ofOrestoff v. Government of the Philippines5decided in 1941. The applicant is thus called upon to set forth categorically that he has all the qualifications required by law.6More specifically, considering that the Naturalization Law itself7requires a showing of good moral character, it would follow, as held inLim Cho Kuan v. Republic,8that such a matter should "be alleged and proved."9In the latest decision in point, promulgated barely two years ago,10this Court, through Chief Justice Concepcion, reaffirmed such a doctrine.11
2. Now as to the lack of lucrative employment. It is one of the qualifications required in the Naturalization Act that petitioner must be worth either not less than P5,000.00 or "must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation."12Some of the earlier decision stressing how essential such a requirement is came from the pen of former Chief Justice Bengzon, in the cases respectively ofLim v. Republic,13Tiong v. Republic,14andSwee Din Tan v. Republic.15InTan v. Republic,16there was a definition of what lucrative employment signifies from the pen of Justice Zaldivar. It "means a gainful employment. It is not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness or disability to work and thus avoid one's becoming the object of charity or a public charge."17Under such a standard, an applicant with an income of P8,687.50 with five children,18one with P5,980.00 with three children,19a third with an income of P6,300.00 and only one child20and still another one with an income of P7,133.29 with four children21were all denied citizenship. Again, from Chief Justice Concepcion comes the latest decision applying such doctrine consistently adhered to with undeviating rigidity. Reference is made toWatt v. Republic,22where, in a sense, a further refinement was made in the Tan pronouncement leading to a stricter view of the matter. In the language of the Chief Justice: "It is not enough for an applicant for naturalization not to be a financial burden upon the community. He must, also, have a 'lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.' And this qualification has been construed to mean, not only that he is not a beggar, a pauper or indigent, but, also, that his financial condition must be such as to permit him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization."23
WHEREFORE,the lower court decision of October 17, 1966 granting citizenship to petitioner Lim Biak Chiao subject to Republic Act No. 530 is reversed. Costs against petitioner Lim Biak Chiao.
Zaldivar (Chairman), Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët
Barredo, J., took no part.
Antonio, J., concurs in the result.
Footnotes