IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF YU LO FOR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. YU LO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Appellant Yu Lo filed a petition for naturalization in the
Court of First Instance of Samar, Said application was accompanied by the
affidavits of the mayor, the justice of the peace, and a councilor of
Catbalogan, Samar, stating that they had known him since 1928, and vouching for
his being a person of good repute and morally fit for naturalization, and that
in their opinion the petitioner had all the qualifications necessary to become a
citizen of the Philippines. On the witness stand during the hearing, these three
affiants repeated and ratified the contents of their affidavit before the court.
By himself and his witnesses petitioner proved the allegations of his petition,
namely, that he had resided in the Philippines continuously for 33 years; that
he had six (6) children by his common-law wife Francisca Amable and with the
exception of the youngest, not yet of school age, all said children were going
to a private school recognized by the Government; that in addition to knowing
the native dialect, he could speak and write Spanish; and that he had an income
of between P7,000 to P10,000 a year from a beauty parlor and from the rentals of
several houses. The trial court found that the petitioner possesses all the
qualifications for naturalization, except that according to it he had not
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner as required by law
because when he gave his personal circumstances as a witness he said that he was
married, but it turned out that he was not married to Francisca Amable and so
the lower court concluded that he must have been married somewhere and to
someone else, in which case, he must be living in concubinage with the mother of
his six children; also that the evidence shows that the beauty parlor as well as
the houses from where his alleged income is derived are all registered in the
name of Francisca Amable and for this reason, the trial court believed that he
had utilized the Philippine citizenship of Francisca to acquire property
contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. For these reasons, the trial
court denied the petition for naturalization. Yu Lo is now appealing from that
decision or order of denial.

We have carefully read the record of this case and we regret to
disagree with the trial court in some of its conclusions. The fact that
appellant stated on the witness stand that he was married when as a matter of
fact he was not married to Francisca Amable does not necessarily prove that he
was married to another woman and so was living in concubinage with Francisca. He
explained to the court in his testimony that he felt that he was married to
Francisca because they had been living as husband and wife for so many years and
had raised a family of six children. As to the ownership of the property
involved, namely, the beauty parlor and the house for rent, he and Francisca
assured the court that said properties were acquired by them during their long
period of cohabitation, and that the capital used and invested in the
acquisition came from them both and so they considered said properties as
belonging to them jointly. When therefore, Yu Lo stated in his petition for
naturalization that he had an income of between P7,000 and P10,000 a year, he
was referring to the income of his family. He and Francisca explained that for
convenience the properties were registered in the name of Francisca alone. These
facts do not warrant the conclusion of the trial court that Yu Lo had utilized
the citizenship of Francisca to illegally acquire said properties contrary to
the provisions of the Constitution. In the first place, the date of the
acquisition of the properties was not specifically mentioned whether before or
after the approval of the Constitution. In the second place, said properties are
not exactly lands mentioned in the Constitution. In the third place, before the
promulgation of the Krivenko^[1] case by a divided court, many were not sure or did
not know what real properties were covered by the constitutional prohibition
regarding acquisition by aliens. So, it is not exactly correct to conclude that
Yu Lo acted in bad faith and took advantage of the Philippine citizenship of his
common-law wife to acquire the beauty parlor and the houses which the two now
own.

However, we agree with the trial court in so far as it denied
the petition for naturalization, on the ground that 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. While there may be a
few cases of concubinage or cohabitation without the sanction of marriage, by
citizens of this country, nevertheless, before admitting an alien into its fold
and giving him the rights and privileges of citizenship, this country by law
requires of the applicant among other things, proper and irreproachable conduct.
Openly cohabiting with a woman and maintaining with her what the law considers
illicit relations, can hardly be regarded proper and irreproachable conduct. For
this reason, we affirm the decision appealed from. 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 the 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. Appellant will pay costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
and Labrador, JJ., concur.

---

[1] 44 Off. Gaz., No. 2, p. 471.