Go Bon The v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Go Bon The, a citizen of Nationalist China, arrived in the Philippines in 1923 and has resided there for over 36 years. He is a merchant engaged in buying and selling hogs, with a reported annual income of approximately P6,000.00, and has filed income tax returns. He speaks English and the Cebu dialect, has no criminal record, and is not suffering from any disqualifying diseases. He is married with four children, all born in the Philippines and studying in local schools. He claims to have a good moral character, mingles with Filipinos, and embraces their customs and ideals, while not being opposed to organized government or affiliated with any subversive associations. Procedural History: Go Bon The filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The court granted his petition, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, which mandates a two-year waiting period before the decision becomes executory and requires further compliance with its provisions. The Republic of the Philippines, as the oppositor, has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The government's appeal raises two main issues: first, whether Go Bon The possesses a lucrative trade or occupation as required by law, and second, whether he failed to state all his former places of residence in his petition. The government contends that his income is not lucrative enough to support his family of six, and that he omitted specific streets (Tres de Abril and C. Padilla) where he previously resided in Cebu City from his petition, thereby violating Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473 and potentially indicating a lack of good moral character.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner possesses a lucrative trade or occupation. Whether the petitioner failed to state all his former places of residence in his petition.
Ruling
The decision appealed from is reversed. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lucrative trade or occupation: The Court held that the petitioner's occupation, even with an annual income of P6,000.00 or a monthly income of P594.44, cannot be considered a lucrative trade within the meaning of the Naturalization Law. Considering that the petitioner's family consists of six members, the per capita income would be only P99.07, which is insufficient to support the family given the high cost of living and low purchasing power of the peso. The Court cited the case of Keng Giok v. Republic where an income of P8,687.50 was not considered lucrative for a family of seven, and a fortiori, the petitioner's lower per capita income further disqualifies his trade from being considered lucrative. On the issue of failure to state all former places of residence: The Court found the government's contention tenable. The petitioner stated his present residence as Espeleta street, Cebu City, and previously resided at Comercio street and evacuated to Camiguin Island. However, during his testimony, he admitted to previously residing in Tres de Abril and C. Padilla streets in Cebu City, which were omitted from his petition. This omission is a violation of Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473, which requires the petition to state not only the present residence but also all other places where the petitioner had formerly resided. The Court rejected the argument that the omission was unintentional or minor, emphasizing that this requirement serves the purpose of enabling the government to investigate the petitioner's character and moral fitness. By omitting these addresses, the petitioner, in effect, falsified the truth, indicating a lack of good moral character, which disqualifies him from admission to Philippine citizenship, citing Keng Giok v. Republic.
Main Doctrine
Failure to state all former places of residence in a naturalization petition constitutes a violation of Section 7 of Commonwealth Act 473 and indicates a lack of good moral character, disqualifying the petitioner from admission to Philippine citizenship.