IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF YU SINGCO, TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. YU SINGCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS AND AP…

This
is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato, the Hon. Juan A. Sarenas, presiding, approving the petition
for naturalization of petitioner Yu Singco, a Chinese. citizen.
Opposition to the petition was presented by the Government on the
ground that “he had lived an immoral life by maintaining two Chinese
wives and had formerly illicit relationship with one Pura Ortuoste,
with whom he had begotten three children.” There is no evidence of the
supposed illicit relations between Pura Ortuoste and the petitioner.
However, there is evidence to the effect that a certain Concepcion Cua
had relations with the petitioner, as a result of which five children
were born to her. Petitioner did not deny the relationship or that the
children were his. He even admitted that he had lived in the same home
with her and had been giving her money, although the excuse he gives is
that he had received help from Cua’s father, when still living with the
latter. The petitioner now has ten children with Chua Hoc Ty whom she
married in Amoy, China in 1924. As to all other qualifications, there
was sufficient evidence that petitioner was fully qualified for
naturalization.

The trial court held:

“* * *. There must be some grain of truth in this piece of evidence
that cannot be entirely ignored, especially in the case of Concepcion
Cua with whom, it is alleged, the petitioner has begotten some
children. But the court, however, believes that such love affair if at
all true, did exist once upon a time when the petitioner was still a
young married man. This case is not unusual in life and is true in any
part of the world. The allegation with respect to the regular support
and maintenance that the petitioner is extending to his alleged
children with Concepcion Cua, were it a fact, militates more in his
favor than not, because it only goes to prove the grandeur of heart and
consciousness of a grace responsibility on the part of the petitioner.
Not many people, the court has observed, are gifted with such a noble
human sentiment and gentlemanliness.”

On
this appeal, the Solicitor General contends that the petitioner has not
conducted himself “in a proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the Philippines * * *”, as required
by section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law. We are constrained to
uphold this contention. What constitutes “proper and irreproachable
conduct” within the meaning of the law must be determined, not by the
law of the country of which the petitioner is a citizen (polygamy is
allowed in China), but by the standards of morality prevalent in this
country, and these in turn by the religious beliefs and social concepts
existing therein. This country is predominantly Catholic and
universally Christian in religious belief. Both seduction and bigamy
are punished as crimes, and while seduction is a private crime and
illegitimates declared legal heirs, a man and a woman living together
as husband and wife, if known to be unmarried, are in general despised
and avoided in society, even if not considered social outcasts. Society
may pardon the sins of their members, but such pardon should not be
confused with approval. In the case at bar, we disagree with the
conclusions of the trial court and hold that as petitioner had
previously lived with another woman with whom he has had five children
and subsequently abandoned them, marrying another, his conduct can
under no circumstances be considered “proper and irreproachable” within
the meaning of the law, even if he actually gives support to his
children.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, hereby reversed and the petition for naturalization denied. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.