IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEE BING HOO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LEE BING HOO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

Petitioner appeals from a
decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying his petition for
naturalization.

On July 19,
1957, petitioner Lee
Bing Hoo, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for
naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVI, then
presided over by the Hon. Carmelino Alvendia, Judge.  The
petition alleges, among other things, that his residence is Suit 286,
Wellington Building, Oriente St., Manila and his
former residence was Roxas City; that his trade or profession is that of a businessman from which he derives an annual income of more than P6,
000.00; that he was born on September 25, 1925, in Capiz, Capiz
(now Roxas City); that he is married to Elizabeth
(Isabel) Manuel by whom he has six (6) child­ren; that he resided continuously
in the Philippines for more than 31 years immediately preceding the date of the
petition; that he knows how to speak and write English, Visayan,
Ilongo and Tagalog
languages; that he is one of three co-heirs of real estate, including improvement,
situated in Roxas City, worth about P40,000.00; that
he has enrolled two of his children at the Parochial Crusaders Academy, Manila;
that he is entitled to the benefits of Section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 473;
that he believes in the principles under­lying the Philippine Constitution;
that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his
entire period of residence in the Philippines in his re­lation with the constituted government as
well as with the community in which he lives; that he has mingled socially with
the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
and that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under
Commonwealth Act 473.

After hearing the
testimony of two character wit­nesses
and partly that of the
petitioner himself, Judge Alvendia was designated
vacation judge for Baguio in May 1961.  On April 26, 1961, petitioner thru a new
counsel, retired Judge Froilan Bayona,
filed an urgent motion praying that the case be set for hearing before any
branch of the court, for the taking of the testimony of the last witness.  This motion was not presented to Judge Alvendia for resolution, although he was still holding
sessions in Manila at the time,
and, as a matter of fact, the case was scheduled for hearing the day following
the filing of the above motion.  The
motion was approved by the Executive Judge Jesus Y Perez and the case was assigned
to Judge Agustin P. Montesa, who continued the
hearing.  After the presentation of
testimonial and doc­umentary evidence, decision was rendered on June 3, 1961, by Judge Montesa granting the petition to declare petitioner a
Filipino citizen.  Copy of this decision
was received by the Solicitor General on June
8, 1961.  No appeal was taken from the decision.

On June 18, 1962, or one year and ten days after the Promulgation
of the decision, the Solicitor General
filed a motion to reopen the
case on the ground that the applicant had committed acts which clearly
demonstrates that he is a person of reproachable and reprehensible
character.  Acting on said motion, Judge Montesa issued on June 23, 1962, the following order:

“x x x
there being no objection thereto on the part of the petitioner, who failed to
file his opposition thereto notwithstanding due notice, the Court finds the
motion to be well?founded, and so
hereby grants the same.  The order of
this Court granting this petition is hereby set aside and let this petition be tried anew.”

On July 20,
1962, petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration of and/or to set aside the above order, but
the same vas denied by the trial court, this time presided over by Judge Alvendia.

On motion of petitioner,
Judge Alvendia set the trial of the case anew for July 9,
1963, on which date
Atty. Jose Omega moved to
withdraw the petition for naturalization.

On August 22, 1963,
the trial court denied the peti­tion for naturalization.  Hence the instant appeal.

Petitioner argues (1) that the lower court has no authority to
order the reopening of the case inasmuch as the judgment had become final; (2) that the finality of the
judgment precludes authority to render a second judgment; and (3) the lower court erred in
denying petitioner’s application for naturalization.

With regard to the first procedural question, it may be stated
that judgment in naturalization cases will not become final until after the
certificate of naturalization is issued and after compliance with the
requirements of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530.  Thus, in the case of Rafael Pe v.
Republic, G. R. No. L-20375, January 31,
1966, We held that “under the law, a decision
granting an application for naturalization shall not become final and executory until
after two years from the promulgation of the decision and after another hearing
is conducted to determine whether or not the applicant has complied with the
requirements of Section 1 of said law.” (See also Gan Tsitung v.
Republic, G. R. No. L-20819, February 21, 1967) We find no error committed by the lower court in ordering the reopening of the case.

With respect to the second question, suffice it so say that it is
a well settled rule that a decision or order granting citizenship to the
applicant does not really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding not being a
judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein is not res
judicata as to any of the reasons or matters
which should support a judgment canceling the certificate of naturalization for
illegal or fraudulent procurement. (Republic v. Bon Lee, G.
R. No. L-11499, April 29, 1961)

Against the petition, the office of the Solicitor General
presented Exhibit 2 containing the complaints filed against petitioner in the
office of the city fiscal of Manila,
in the Court of First Instance of Manila, and in the Manila Police
Department.  Thus, in the fiscal’s office of Manila,
the petitioner has two cases of falsi­fication of public and commercial
document, violation of the Bulk Sales Law and estafa.  Two of these criminal cases were dropped
provisionally and the other two were definitely dropped by the investigating
fiscals.  In the Manila Police
Department, the petitioner has the following records:  driving against one way and dis­regarding
traffic signs.  In both cases, he was warned by the authorities.

Moreover, during the pendency of this
appeal, the government gave information that the petitioner maintained a
paramour by whom he had six (6) children. 
It is submitted certified photostatic copies of the birth
certificates of the children, which, notwithstanding due notice to him, the
petitioner failed to explain.  We have
repeatedly held that by such conduct, petitioner shows lack of good moral character. (Sy
Kian v. Republic, G. R. No. 102 Phil., 575; Tan v.
Republic, G. R. No. L-14861, March 17, 1961; Manuel Lao v.
Republic, G. R. No. L-17055, October 27, 1961;
Francisco Lao @ Meo v. Republic, G. R. No. L-17054,
November 23, 1962)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed with
costs against the appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ., concur.