IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SY TIAN LAI ALIAS RUPERTO SY TANGCO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. SY TIAN LAI ALIAS RUPERTO SY TANGCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, …

On September 19, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
rendered a decision denying the petition for naturalization filed by Sy
Tian Lai alias Ruperto Sy Tangco, on the sole ground that the
petitioner was not of good moral character, in that he was keeping a
Filipino woman in his house with whom he has three children, without
the benefit of marriage. On October 31, 1951, or before the decision
had become final, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
alleging that, on October 20, 1951, he married the woman with whom he
was living, and praying that a new trial be granted to allow the
petitioner to prove such marriage; that thereafter the decision be
reconsidered in petitioner’s favor; and that, in case of denial of the
motion for reconsideration, the decision be made without prejudice. The
court, in its order of November 8, 1951, set aside the decision of
September 19, 1951, and permitted the petitioner to present additional
evidence. On December 21, 1951, the court rendered a supplementary
decision, reiterating the decision of September 19, 1951 and denying
the petition for naturalization, on the ground that the immoral life of
the petitioner for a period of five years was not removed by his
subsequent marriage. The petitioner has appealed.

In Yu Lo vs. Republic of the Philippines,^[*]
G. R. No. L-4725, decided on October 15, 1952, we affirmed the appealed
decision denying the petition for naturalization, because “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.” But we pointed out that “this
denial of appellant’s petition for naturalization is without prejudice
to a renewal thereof if and when the petitioner shall have seen his way
clear to mending his ways such as for instance, legalizing his
relations with the mother of his children by marriage, civil or
religious, so as to comply with requisites of the law on
naturalization. In such a case, the evidence in this case may be
availed of and utilized in addition to any other evidence that may be
introduced by petitioner or by the Government, favorable or adverse.”

The Solicitor General, in his manifestation dated March 9, 1953,
expressed the belief “that the instant petition for naturalization
could have been granted considering that appellant saw his way clear to
mending his ways by legalizing his relation with the mother of his
children by marriage so as to comply with the requisites of the law on
naturalization, in line with a suggestion made by this

Honorable Court in its decision in the case of Yu Lo,
petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines,
oppositor-appellee, G. R. No. L-4725, promulgated October 15, 1952.”

While technically the case at bar is distinguishable in the sense
that the petitioner herein is already married and proof thereof is
already on record, we are still inclined (indeed as alternatively
prayed for by the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration of
October 31, 1951) to affirm the appealed decisions without prejudice,
however, to the filing of another petition for naturalization. The
petitioner obviously intended to nullify the effect of the decision by
hastening to marry before it had become final, thereby avoiding the
formalities and delay ensuing from a renewal of his petition. It is to
ward off and forestall any suspicious design that we have chosen to
follow the procedure indicated in the case of Yu Lo, supra.
An alien who earnestly wants to embrace Philippine citizenship will
overlook all delays and difficulties incident to naturalization
proceedings.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed without prejudice to
the filing by the petitioner, if he desires, of a new petition,
reserving to the parties the right to utilize the evidence already
presented in this case in addition to any other evidence that they may
introduce. So ordered, with costs against the petitioner.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

---

^[*] 92 Phil., 105.