MANUEL LAO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OP THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Manuel
Lao seeks to be declared a Filipino citizen in a petition filed before
the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which petition is supported by
the affidavits of Vicente Kangleon and Jose K. Bantug, both residence
of Maasin, Leyte. In spite of the opposition filed by the provincial
fiscal, the court, after trial, rendered decision on March 2, 1959
granting the petition. Hence this appeal.

Petitioner is a
Chinese citizen owing allegiance to the Republic of China. He was born
in Maasin, Leyte on May 25, 1925, where he resided continuously. He is
a merchant by occupation, having engaged therein since 1950. His annual
income is P1,500.00. He finished his high school at the Maasin
Institute. He has four children, namely, Purificacion born on February
2, 1952, Virginia born on September 25, 1953, Celestina born on May 19,
1955, and Norma born on April 24, 1957. These children were born to
Illuminada Lora whom petitioner married in a civil ceremony only on
April 18, 1958, or four days before the filing of his petition for
naturalization. These children at the time of hearing were not yet
enrolled in any school because they were not of school age.

The court a quo
in its decision found that petitioner “speaks and writes the English
well as shown by his testifying for himself in fluent English; that he
is a graduate of the secondary school of Maasin Institute according to
Exhibit M; that he also speaks the Cebuano-Visayan dialect as he was
born in Maasin, Leyte, stayed in this place since birth.” This is now
assigned as error in view of the fact that there is nothing in the
record to support the finding that petitioner knows how to speak the
Cebuano dialect, or any other dialect for that matter.

There
is merit in this contention. The finding of the trial court that
petitioner knpws how to speak the Cebuano- Visayan dialect for the
simple reason that he was born in Maasin, Leyte and stayed in that
place since his birth, is an unwarranted assumption of a question of
fact, for such being a qualification required by law, it cannot merely
be presumed but must be established by clear evidence. Moreover, it is
not uncommon for a person to reside in a place even for quite a long
time and still fail to learn to speak or write the language or dialect
spoken in the locality. And our law requires not only that one should
be able to speak English or Spanish or any dialect but to write any one
of them as well and this has to be established to the satisfaction of
the court. Here the evidence is completely blank on this matter.

Another
point raised by the government refers to the moral qualification of
petitioner. It is claimed that the lower court erred in finding that
petitioner had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines
considering the proven fact that he had been living illicitly or
without benefit of clergy with one Illuminada Lora by whom he had four
children and only thought of formalizing his status in a civil ceremony
celebrated on April 18, 1958, or four days before he filed the present
petition for naturalization. Such a conduct is indeed far from proper
or becoming of one who desires to embrace our citizenship for it runs
counter to the custom, idiosyncracy and moral standard that have
prevailed in our country from time immemorial. Our society is mainly
composed of religious people who abhor illicit relations between men
and women even if our civil law contains liberal provisions with regard
to illegitimate children. The conduct observed by petitioner in
bringing up an illegitimate family is not in keeping with our moral
standard.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.