Antonio Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines

A naturalization petition must be filed in the CFI of the province where the applicant has resided for at least one year immediately preceding the filing; an annual income of not more than P2,400.00 for a married man with two children is not a lucrative occupation; and failure to allege all former places of residence is a ground for dismissal. The SC reversed the appealed judgment and dismissed Yu’s petition for citizenship with costs.

Antonio Yu was born in Masbate, Masbate, on February 10, 1929, and was a resident of Palanas, Masbate, until 1941. He later left for Manila to study and work, eventually establishing a watch repair shop there in 1957. On June 26, 1957, he filed an application for Philippine Citizenship in the CFI of Masbate. The Government opposed the application, but the CFI granted it. The Republic appealed to the SC.

Antonio Yu, a citizen of Nationalist China, was born in Masbate, Masbate, on February 10, 1929, and was a resident of Palanas, Masbate, until 1941. In 1941 he left Masbate for Manila to pursue his studies and later took employment as assistant manager of the Gung Ho Bakery with a monthly salary of P180.00. He resigned from that employment in 1957 to establish a watch repair shop at No. 321 P. Gomez, Manila, from which he derived an annual income of P2,400.00. Together with his wife and two children, he resided at 240 Chica St., Manila until January 1959, when he transferred his residence to No. 354 Craig, Sampaloc, Manila. The evidence also showed that he could speak and write English and the Visayan dialect.

On June 26, 1957, Antonio Yu filed his application for Philippine Citizenship in the CFI of Masbate. The Government opposed the application. The CFI of Masbate granted the application, and the Government appealed to the SC.

The SC found that although Yu was born in Masbate, he appeared to have moved his residence to Manila since 1947, where he had sought employment and where in 1957 he established a watch repair shop. Consequently, his petition for citizenship should have been filed in the CFI of Manila and not in that of Masbate.

The SC also found from Yu’s own evidence that his annual income did not amount to more than P2,400.00. Considering that he was a married man with two children, he could not be said, under repeated rulings, to be engaged in a lucrative business.

The record further disclosed that Yu failed to disclose in his petition that, aside from Palanas, Masbate, he had resided at two different places in the City of Manila prior to the filing of his petition.

• N/A — The text does not set out the arguments of Antonio Yu, petitioner and appellee.

• The Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor and appellant, sought reversal of the appealed judgment on the following grounds: (1) the CFI of Masbate did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition because appellee did not reside in the province of Masbate for at least one year immediately preceding the filing thereof; (2) appellee did not have any lucrative trade, profession, or occupation; and (3) appellee failed to allege in his petition all his former places of residence, as required by law.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the CFI of Masbate acquired jurisdiction over the petition despite appellee not residing in the province of Masbate for at least one year immediately preceding the filing thereof.
• Lucrative Occupation: Whether appellee had a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation.
• Former Residences: Whether appellee failed to allege in his petition all his former places of residence, as required by law.

• Jurisdiction: No. The petition should have been filed in the CFI of Manila and not in the CFI of Masbate under Sec. 8, Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, because appellee had moved his residence to Manila since 1947.
• Lucrative Occupation: No. His annual income did not amount to more than P2,400.00, and considering that he was a married man with two children, he could not be said to be engaged in a lucrative business under repeated rulings.
• Former Residences: Yes. He failed to disclose in his petition that, aside from Palanas, Masbate, he had resided at two different places in the City of Manila prior to the filing of his petition.

• Jurisdiction: Although appellee was born in Masbate, Masbate, the SC found that he appeared to have moved his residence to Manila since 1947, where he had sought employment and where in 1957 he established a watch repair shop. Because the petition for citizenship should have been filed in the CFI of Manila and not in that of Masbate, the CFI of Masbate did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition. The SC cited Sec. 8, Revised Naturalization Law, as amended.
• Lucrative Occupation: The SC relied on appellee’s own evidence showing that his annual income did not amount to more than P2,400.00. Considering that he was a married man with two children, the SC held that he could not be said, under repeated rulings, to be engaged in a lucrative business.
• Former Residences: The record disclosed that appellee failed to disclose in his petition that, aside from Palanas, Masbate, he had resided at two different places in the City of Manila prior to the filing of his petition. This omission was treated as a ground for reversal of the appealed judgment.

• Residence requirement for naturalization jurisdiction — Under Sec. 8, Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, the petition must be filed in the CFI of the province where the applicant has resided for at least one year immediately preceding the filing. The SC applied this by holding that because Yu moved to Manila since 1947, sought employment there, and established a watch repair shop there in 1957, his petition belonged in the CFI of Manila, not the CFI of Masbate.
• Lucrative occupation requirement — An applicant must have a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. The SC held that an annual income of not more than P2,400.00 for a married man with two children is not lucrative under repeated rulings.
• Disclosure of former residences — A naturalization petitioner must allege all former places of residence. The SC held that Yu’s failure to disclose two Manila residences prior to filing was a ground for reversal.

• “Upon the facts of record the appealed judgment must be reversed.”
• “Consequently, his petition for citizenship should have been filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila and not in that of Masbate.”
• “In the second place, his own evidence shows that his annual income did not amount to more than P2,400.00. Considering that he is a married man with two children, it is obvious that he can not be said, under repeated rulings of this Court, to be engaged in a lucrative business.”
• “Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, with the result that appellee's petition for citizenship is hereby dismissed with costs.”

• N/A — The text does not cite any specific case name or citation; it refers only to “repeated rulings of this Court” on the lucrative-business requirement.

• Sec. 8, Revised Naturalization Law, as amended — Cited by the SC for the rule that the petition should have been filed in the CFI of Manila, not the CFI of Masbate, because appellee did not reside in Masbate for at least one year immediately preceding the filing. The text also refers to the requirement to allege all former places of residence “as required by law” but does not cite a specific provision for that requirement.

• Concepcion, C.J.
• Reyes, J.B.L.
• Barrera
• Regala
• Makalintal
• J.P. Bengzon
• Zaldivar
• Sanchez
• Castro

• None stated in the text.