You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c42fb?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[IN MATTER OF PETITION OF ANTONIO L. CO FOR NATURALIZATION. ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c42fb?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c42fb}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights
123 Phil. 535

[ G.R. No. L-21078, April 29, 1966 ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANTONIO L. CO FOR NATURALIZATION. ANTONIO L. CO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

MAKALINTAL, J.:

Antonio L. Co, born in Pampanga in 1937, citizen of Nationalist China, applied tor naturalization in the Court of First Instance of said province. In its decision of March 24, 1962 the court found him qualified and granted his application. The Solicitor General appealed on one ground: that appellee does not fulfill the requirement of lucrative trade or occupation.

In other respects indeed the record discloses that the applicant's qualifications adequately meet the legal requirements. He has lived in the Philippines continuously, leaving only once in 1947 for a four-month visit in Amoy with his parents. He received his elementary and secondary education in the Guagua national Colleges, Pampanga, and obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science from the University of the East, Manila. His conduct, moral character, association with Filipinos and desire to embrace the native customs, ideals and traditions are duly vouched for and established by the evidence. So are his political convictions and sympathies, his knowledge of the principles underlying the Constitution, his lack of criminal record, his physical and mental health, and his sincerity and good faith in desiring Philippine citizenship.

On the issue raised by the Solicitor General, however, this appeal must be sustained. For the applicant's income of P200.00 a month, received by him, he testified, as assistant manager of his parent's sugar cane farm, cannot be considered lucrative for purposes of naturalization. Our ruling to this effect has been laid down in so many recent decisions that an extensive review thereof is unnecessary (see Antonio Dy vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-20348, December 24, 1965 and cases cited).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization is dismissed. Costs against petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.


tags