IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF OSMUNDO TAN ALIAS MUNDO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. OSMUNDO TAN ALIAS MUNDO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE…

Osmundo Tan versus Republic

The Case

This is Osmundo Tan versus the Republic of the Philippines, an appeal brought by the Government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte granting Osmundo Tan's petition for naturalization. In plain speech, a man asks to become a Filipino citizen, the trial court says yes, and the State says no. The case matters because it shows, in the Court's own words, how the requirement of proper and irreproachable conduct and the requirement of a known lucrative trade are weighed against an applicant, and why a promise of marriage that is never kept can defeat a naturalization petition.

Procedural History

Osmundo Tan filed his petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. After hearing, that court rendered a decision granting the petition. The Government appealed from that decision directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as grounds that the petitioner does not have the moral character and has not observed the irreproachable conduct essential to qualify him for naturalization, and that he has no lucrative trade, profession or occupation. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and dismissed the petition.

Facts

From 1950 to 1957, Osmundo Tan and one Ludivina Geraldo lived in the same house as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Out of their extra-marital relations, Ludivina Geraldo bore him two children.

The trial court thought these facts insufficient to bar naturalization. Both parties were single, there was no legal impediment to their marriage, and neither Ludivina Geraldo nor her parents, with whom she had stayed since the birth of her second child, had complained against him or objected to his naturalization. The petitioner had also proposed marriage to her, and his father had given her employment as a salesgirl.

But the petitioner merely promised to marry Ludivina Geraldo and never fulfilled that promise, although she wanted him to do so. On the financial side, the petitioner claimed an average yearly income of 1,500 pesos as a driver and copra buyer for his own father, Tan Vu Chin.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the community in which he lived, within the meaning of the Revised Naturalization Law.
• Whether or not the petitioner had a known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation, within the meaning of the same law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, third subdivision, of Commonwealth Act Number 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, provides:

He must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.

This is the conduct requirement the Court measured the petitioner's open cohabitation against.

Section 2, fourth subdivision, of the same law provides:

He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.

This is the income requirement the Court found unmet on the evidence of record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner did not conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner. Having kept Ludivina Geraldo in his house, openly and publicly, for several years as his paramour, he could not claim to have met the conduct requirement. The Court observed that the promise of marriage appeared to be only a means to seduce her, and the job as salesgirl no more than a muzzle to silence her and her family. It quoted its own earlier ruling:

Openly cohabiting with a woman and maintaining with her what the law considers illicit relations can hardly be regarded proper and irreproachable.

On the second issue, the Court held that the evidence was insufficient to show a known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation. It considered the present high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the currency, and it noted that the petitioner's alleged employment was in the business of his own father.

Doctrine

First, an applicant for naturalization must show proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations both with the constituted government and with the community in which he lives. Open and public cohabitation with a woman outside marriage, maintained for years, is not proper and irreproachable conduct, and it bars naturalization even where neither the woman nor her family objects.

Second, the requirement of a known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation is not satisfied by modest earnings, especially where the claimed employment is in the business of the applicant's own father. The Court weighs the income against the high cost of living and the low purchasing power of the currency.

Third, a promise of marriage that is made and never kept, while the woman wants it fulfilled, may be treated as a means to seduce rather than as evidence of good character.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line that open cohabitation with a woman and maintaining with her what the law considers illicit relations can hardly be regarded proper and irreproachable. Examiners use this case to test the conduct requirement and the lucrative trade requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law, especially where the income comes from the applicant's own family business.