Ng v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Mariano Ng, also known as Mariano Uy, a citizen of the Republic of China, was born in Manila on September 8, 1932. He is married to Sy Gui Tuna and has two minor children. At the time of filing his amended petition for naturalization, he was employed as a sales manager at the Aluminum Basin Factory, owned by his brother, earning a monthly salary of P500.00 plus an annual bonus. 2. Procedural History: The Republic of the Philippines appealed a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 23, 1963, which had granted petitioner Mariano Ng's application for naturalization. The appeal was lodged by the Office of the Solicitor General. 3. The Petition: The Republic contends that the lower court erred in finding that petitioner's character witnesses could adequately vouch for his good and morally irreproachable character throughout his entire residence in the Philippines, and that the court erred in finding that petitioner possessed a lucrative income. The Republic argues that the witnesses' testimony was insufficient as they only knew the petitioner from 1948 and 1951, respectively, and that petitioner's income, excluding bonuses, was not lucrative enough to support his family, citing previous rulings on similar cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner possessed a lucrative income as required by the Naturalization Law. Whether the petitioner's character witnesses were in a position to vouch for his morally irreproachable conduct during his entire period of residence in the Philippines.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the petition for naturalization is reversed. The petition is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lucrative income: The Court held that bonuses, being indefinite and unsteady, cannot be considered in determining whether an applicant has a lucrative occupation. Petitioner's monthly salary of P500.00 (P6,000.00 annually) was deemed insufficient, especially considering he was married with two minor children. The Court cited Tan vs. Republic where an applicant earning P6,300.00 annually with only one child was held to lack a lucrative trade. The additional exemption for a second child under Republic Act 2343 further underscored the financial burden, indicating that P6,000.00 annually was not lucrative for a married individual with two dependents. On the issue of morally irreproachable conduct: The Court found that the character witnesses, who only came to know the petitioner in 1948 and 1951, were not in a position to testify about his conduct during his entire period of residence in the Philippines, which began at his birth in 1932. The law requires vouching for conduct throughout the entire period of residence. The Court reiterated its ruling in Chua Pun vs. Republic and Dy Tian vs. Republic, emphasizing that witnesses must have known the applicant for a substantial period covering the majority of their residence in the Philippines. Petitioner's own assertion of good conduct was deemed insufficient to establish this vital fact, particularly for the period from his age of discernment (1941) until 1948, during which no witness testified on his behalf.
Main Doctrine
An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate possession of a lucrative income and morally irreproachable conduct throughout their entire period of residence in the Philippines, as attested by witnesses who can genuinely vouch for such conduct during the relevant duration.