Pek v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Li Tong Pek, a Chinese national, sought naturalization as a Filipino citizen. He was born in China in 1921 and arrived in the Philippines in 1930, residing intermittently in the country and in China for his education. He married Josefa Dy Liaco Chua-Unsu, also a Chinese citizen, and they have eight children, all born in the Philippines. The family resides in Naga City, where petitioner has been employed in a ricemill owned by his brother, holding positions from laborer to cashier and bookkeeper, with varying income levels. His wife also works as a cashier. Petitioner speaks and writes English and Bicol, holds a Bachelor of Science in Commerce degree, and claims to have conducted himself irreproachably, mingled with Filipinos, and embraced their customs and ideals. He asserts he is not opposed to organized government, does not advocate violence, is not a polygamist, has no criminal record involving moral turpitude, and is not suffering from any incurable disease. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner filed an application for naturalization, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in a decision rendered on September 27, 1962. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, opposed the application and subsequently filed the present appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower court's decision. 3. The Petition: The government's appeal to the Supreme Court contends that the lower court erred in granting the naturalization petition. Specifically, the appellant argues that the petitioner does not possess a lucrative income sufficient to provide economic stability as required by law. Furthermore, the government asserts that the petitioner failed to enroll his school-aged children in schools recognized by the government where the student population is predominantly Filipino, arguing this demonstrates a lack of sincere desire to embrace Filipino citizenship. The Supreme Court found merit in both contentions, noting the petitioner's income was not lucrative given his family size and the cost of living, and that the schools attended by his children, though recognized, were predominantly Chinese-run and attended, thus disqualifying him from naturalization.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner possesses a "lucrative income" as required by law for naturalization. Whether the petitioner evinced a sincere desire to become a Filipino citizen by enrolling his children in schools recognized by the government where students are predominantly Filipino.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, denying the petition for naturalization. The Court found that the petitioner's income was not lucrative and that his choice of schools for his children indicated a lack of sincere desire to embrace Filipino citizenship.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the petitioner's income was not "lucrative" within the purview of the law. Considering his average monthly salary from the Naga Ricemill, which ranged from P240.00 to P260.00, and later P15.00 daily, the Court determined this was insufficient, especially given his large family of eight children and the prevailing high cost of living and low purchasing value of currency. The income of his wife, though also employed, was deemed immaterial as the law requires the petitioner himself to possess a known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. The Court reiterated its long-standing interpretation that such an income is far from lucrative. On Issue 2: The Court also found that the petitioner did not sufficiently evince a sincere desire to become a Filipino citizen. While his children were enrolled in the Anglo-Chinese High School and Hope Christian School, which are recognized by the government, the Court noted that these institutions are predominantly attended by Chinese students and supervised by Chinese citizens. This circumstance, according to the Court, indicated that these schools were operated primarily for the education of Chinese children, and by enrolling his children therein, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the expected sincere desire to embrace Filipino citizenship and its ideals. This failure was deemed sufficient to disqualify him.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reversed the grant of naturalization, finding that the petitioner failed to meet two essential requirements: possessing a lucrative income and demonstrating a sincere desire to become a Filipino citizen. The Court held that the petitioner's income was not lucrative given his family size and the cost of living, and that enrolling his children in a predominantly Chinese school, despite its government recognition, indicated a lack of genuine assimilation into Filipino culture and ideals.