So v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leon C. So applied for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga granted his petition on August 31, 1960. Subsequently, on July 10, 1962, he moved to take his oath and be issued a certificate of naturalization. Procedural History: At the initial hearing in July-August 1960, So claimed to be a sales clerk with a salary of P2,400.00 annually, later increased to P3,000.00. At a rehearing in September 1962, he testified his salary was P300.00 monthly and that his mother owned land. Doubting the sufficiency of his income for a married man with six children, the lower court held his oath-taking in abeyance on October 1, 1962, directing him to prove substantial means. The Petition: On motion for reconsideration, So presented a contract dated October 25, 1962, increasing his salary to P900.00 monthly effective November 1, 1962, and was considered a co-owner of the land. Relying on this, the lower court authorized his oath-taking on November 18, 1962. However, the trial judge had already administered the oath on November 17, 1962. The Government appealed, and the lower court ordered the cancellation of the oath and certificate on December 29, 1962.
Issue(s)
Whether the contract increasing the petitioner's salary was sufficient proof of lucrative employment. Whether the petitioner's claim of co-ownership of land constituted substantial means for naturalization.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court, denied the petitioner's motion to take his oath, and ordered the cancellation of the oath and certificate of naturalization previously issued. Costs were against the petitioner-appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lucrative employment: The Court found the contract increasing Leon C. So's salary from P300.00 to P900.00 per month to be self-serving and made solely to adjust his evidence to the court's perceived insufficiency. The employer was his mother, and there was no explanation for the sudden tripling of his salary. The Court cited previous cases (Velasco vs. Republic, Cu vs. Republic, Que Hoc Gui vs. Republic, Tan vs. Republic, Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic) where similar sudden increases in salary, especially from close relatives, were deemed insufficient to prove lucrative employment. On the issue of co-ownership of land: The Court found that the petitioner's own testimony contradicted his claim of co-ownership, as he stated the land belonged to his mother and she alone received the income. Even assuming it was conjugal property, his share would be minuscule after division among his mother and thirteen siblings, with no evidence of the land's value or the estate's lack of obligations. The lower court itself had initially considered this evidence insufficient, prompting the petitioner to focus on improving his income evidence. Therefore, the claim of co-ownership did not satisfy the legal requirement for substantial means.
Main Doctrine
A contract increasing an applicant's salary to meet the 'lucrative employment' requirement for naturalization, executed after the lower court expressed doubts about the sufficiency of his income and shortly before a rehearing, is considered self-serving and insufficient evidence, especially when the employer is a close relative and the increase is substantial and unexplained. Similarly, claims of co-ownership of land are insufficient if contradicted by the applicant's own testimony and lacking competent evidence of value or clear title.