G. R. No. L-10008. December 18, 1957

This appeal  is taken by the Solicitor  General  from  a decision  in  Naturalization Case No.  96 of  the Court  of First Instance  of  Cebu,  declaring  applicant Sy Kiam qualified  to  assume Filipino citizenship.

The State counsel contends that petitioner Sy Kiam had mentioned only  eleven  (11)  children had  by him  with his Filipina wife, Aurora Villaflor,  while in the witness stand he  (Sy Kiam)  disclosed that he had  begotten thirteen (13) children,  two of whom  have died; that there is no evidence that the latter had been  enrolled  in  authorized schools before  their death; and that in the absence of such evidence,  Sy Kiam can not be said to  have  fully complied with the conditions set by our Naturalization laws,  that require the applicant  for  naturalization  to  enroll  all  his children  of school age  in  recognized schools not  limited to any nationality or race  (Com. Act 473, sec.  2,  par. 6; sec.  6).

We deem this objection of no importance for  it appears of record that Sy Kiam’s  first  child  (Juanito)  was born on October ,10,  1928,  while  his two deceased children, Vicenta and Maurieio, died in 1929 and  1932 respectively (t.s.n., p. 15).  While their dates of birth do not  appear, the  foregoing circumstances suffice  to   show  that  said Vicenta and  Mauricio  died  before reaching school  age. The  fact,  therefore, that  they  were  not  enrolled  in a recognized school would not be a valid objection against the petition for naturalization.

The  “weightier objection  arises from the fact that,  according to his own Exhibit “G”,  Sy Kiam married  Aurora Villaflor  on 9 February 1950, only  six months before applying  for naturalization.   This means  that he had  cohabited with  her and begotten  thirteen  children  by her without benefit of marriage; and this Court has  ruled that such  behavior falls  short of the “proper and irreproachable  conduct” that  our  naturalization law requires  (Yu Lo vs. Republic, 48 Off. Gaz., 4334; Yu Singco us. Republic, 94 Phil.,  191; 50 Off. Gaz., 104).  In the Yu Lo case this Court,  speaking through Mr. Justice Montemayor, made the following ruling  (at p. 4387) that is squarely applicable to the present case:

“However,  we agree with the trial  court  in  so far as it denied the petition for  naturalization,  on the ground that the conduct and behavior of  appellant in cohabiting with Francisca Amable and begetting children by her  without the benefit  of marriage, from the standpoint of morality  and decency, does  not  meet with  the approval not only of  this court but of the community where he lives and the country whose citizenship he applied  for, which  country by the  way is  mostly Christian and of  the Catholic faith.  While there  may be a few cases of concubinage or cohabitation  without the sanction  of marriage, by citizens of this country, nevertheless, before admitting an  alien into  its fold and giving him the rights and privileges of citizenship, this country by law requires of the applicant, among other things,  proper and irreproachable  conduct. Openly cohabiting  with  a  woman  and maintaining with her  what the  law considers  illicit relations, can hardly be regarded proper and irreproachable conduct.

For this  reason, we affirm the decision appealed from.” We therefore believe  that the naturalization should have been refused,  and reverse  the judgment of the  court below, without prejudice  to  a  renewal  of  the  application provided  the applicant  has observed irreproachable  conduct after  his marriage for  the 5-year period required by section 3 of Commonwealth Act 478 of aliens who  are married to  Filipino women, and  no other disqualifications appear.  Without costs.  So ordered.

Paras C.  J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.