Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12084)
Facts:
The case at hand is Casiano King vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-19082, decided on September 29, 1966, by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The petitioner, Casiano King, born in Manila on August 13, 1933, has always resided in the city. He works as a sales supervisor for the Pacific Glass Company, earning a basic salary of P500 per month, totaling roughly P10,000 annually. At the time of his petition, he was a citizen of Nationalist China, where the laws permit Filipinos to gain naturalization. King is married to Ko Le Tin, a Chinese national born in Hong Kong on June 12, 1939, and they have a child named Cary King, born in Manila on September 13, 1960. The family resides at 825 Salazar Street, Manila. King has demonstrated proficiency in both English and Tagalog and affirms his belief in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. He claims to have engaged socially with Filipinos and embodies a sincere intention to integrate into the country's cu
...Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12084)
Facts:
- Background of the Petitioner
- Petitioner Casiano King was born in Manila on August 13, 1933, and has resided there since birth.
- He is employed as a sales supervisor at the Pacific Glass Company, drawing a basic monthly salary of P500.00 with an annual income reported at approximately P10,000.00.
- He is currently a citizen of Nationalist China, under whose laws naturalized citizenship for Filipinos is permitted.
- Presentation of Evidence for Naturalization
- Petitioner submitted extensive evidence to support his petition for Philippine citizenship in the lower court.
- Evidence established his personal history including:
- His long-time residence in the Philippines.
- Proficiency in English and Tagalog.
- A sincere adherence to the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution.
- Other evidence included his social integration:
- Regular mingling with the Filipino community.
- Absence of involvement with groups or associations that oppose organized government or propagate violent doctrines.
- Personal background details:
- He is married to Ko Le Tin, a Chinese national born in Hong Kong on June 12, 1939.
- They have one child, Cary King, born in Manila on September 13, 1960, who resides with them at 825 Salazar Street, Manila.
- He declared his intention to:
- Become a good-faith citizen of the Philippines by renouncing all allegiances to other states, particularly the Republic of China.
- Reside continuously in the Philippines from the time of his petition filing until his admission as a citizen.
- Affirm that he had not filed any previous citizenship petitions in any court.
- Basis of Denial in the Lower Court
- The petition was denied on August 29, 1961, primarily because the character witnesses, Angelina Baluyut and Dr. Jose Velasco, failed to prove that the petitioner had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period of residence in the Philippines.
- The witness testimonies were challenged on the ground that:
- Angelina Baluyut came to know the petitioner only in 1939.
- Dr. Jose Velasco could attest to his character only from 1947.
- As a consequence, they could not vouch for his behavior from birth in 1933—failing to satisfy the statutory requirement.
- Additional Consideration Regarding Financial Qualification
- Analysis of petitioner’s income revealed:
- His income tax return for 1960 showed a combined salary plus representation/travel allowance of P5,165.00.
- There were also bonuses and commissions amounting to P5,000.00.
- The court determined:
- Contingent bonuses and commissions are speculative and precarious, thus they must be excluded.
- The remaining verifiable income (P5,165.00) was insufficient given that for a married applicant with one child, an annual income of at least P6,300.00 is required.
Issues:
- Whether the character witnesses presented in support of the naturalization petition have satisfied the statutory requirement by testifying on the petitioner’s conduct for the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.
- Does the requirement under Section 2, paragraph 3, of the Revised Naturalization Law compel witnesses to have known the petitioner for his entire residence period?
- Is the period “required by this Act” limited to the minimum period of residence (ten or five years) or does it encompass the entire period the petitioner has resided in the country?
- Whether the petitioner’s income qualifies as “lucrative” given his financial obligations as a married man with a minor child.
- Should contingent items such as bonuses and commissions be considered when determining if his occupation is lucrative?
- Does his net verifiable income meet the financial threshold established by precedent for naturalization applicants in his circumstances?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)