Lim v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Serapion Lim, a citizen of the Republic of China, born in Bohol in 1928 and residing in Ozamiz City since 1936, filed a petition for naturalization. He is married and has two children, born in 1957 and 1959. His stated occupation is salesman with a monthly salary of P300.00. 2. Procedural History: Lim filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental on May 6, 1961. Following publication and trial, the court granted the petition on October 4, 1962. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The Republic's appeal to the Supreme Court raises two primary issues: first, whether Lim's character witnesses adequately established the allegations in their supporting affidavits, and second, whether Lim possesses a lucrative occupation. The appeal argues that the witnesses failed to attest to each requisite qualification individually, and that Lim's annual income of P3,600.00 is insufficient to be considered lucrative given his marital status and two children.
Issue(s)
Whether the character witnesses for the petitioner established all the requisite qualifications for naturalization. Whether the petitioner possessed a lucrative occupation.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the petition for naturalization is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the character witnesses established all the requisite qualifications: The Court held that the character witnesses, Maximo Lago and Jose Nuñez, failed to testify that the petitioner possessed each of the requisite qualifications for naturalization. While they stated in general terms that he had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, their specific testimonies only covered some of the qualifications. For instance, witness Maximo Lago testified only on continuous residence, good reputation, good moral character, and belief in the Philippine Constitution and good order. Witness Jose Nuñez similarly testified on residence, good relations with Filipinos, and belief in the Constitution. Neither witness established that the petitioner had a lucrative employment, could speak and write English or Spanish and a principal Philippine language, or was free from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases. The Court emphasized that such deficiency is fatal because character witnesses must attest in court to each of the requisite qualifications, citing Cuaki Tan Si vs. Republic. On whether the petitioner possessed a lucrative occupation: The Court found that the petitioner's occupation as a salesman with a monthly salary of P300.00, amounting to P3,600.00 per annum, was not lucrative, considering he was married and had two children. The Court referenced its ruling in Tan v. Republic, where an income of P6,300.00 per annum was deemed not lucrative for a married applicant with one child. Therefore, the petitioner's application could not prosper even on this requisite alone.
Main Doctrine
Character witnesses in naturalization proceedings must attest to each of the requisite qualifications and disqualifications, and a monthly income of P300.00 is not considered lucrative for a married applicant with two children.