G.R. No. L-14630; September 30, 1960
LY HONG alias PIO LEE, petitioner and appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Ly Hong alias Pio Lee filed a petition for naturalization on August 12, 1955, in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan. He alleged he was born in China in 1909, arrived in the Philippines around 1923, and had resided continuously in the country since then, lastly in Aparri, Cagayan. He claimed to be of good moral character, married to a Filipina with four children, employed as a manager with a substantial salary, able to speak and write English, Tagalog, and Bicol, and to have all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under Commonwealth Act No. 473 . The petition was given due course. During the proceedings, the government, through a letter from a private citizen, Lauro Villados, adopted an opposition alleging that Ly Hong did not mingle socially with Filipinos, did not pay employees the minimum wage, frequented gambling dens, played prohibited games, and sought naturalization to exploit the country’s natural resources. At trial, after Ly Hong presented his evidence, the government presented Villados as a witness. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that Ly Hong failed to deny or refute Villados’s testimony that he played prohibited games (pikiu and paya) in a gambling club, thereby failing to prove he conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied Ly Hong’s petition for naturalization based on the uncontradicted testimony of a government witness that he frequented a gambling den and played prohibited games, which demonstrated a lack of the required good moral character and proper conduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision denying the petition. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to deny, refute, or contradict the testimony of Lauro Villados regarding his gambling activities was fatal to his application. Gambling is a criminal offense against public morals, and frequenting a known gambling den demonstrates conduct that is not proper and irreproachable, as required by Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 . The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that a criminal conviction was necessary to establish this disqualification, clarifying that the denial was based on his failure to prove the positive qualification of good moral character and proper conduct, not on a specific statutory disqualification like moral turpitude. The Court also upheld the trial court’s assessment of the witness’s credibility and reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to show full compliance with the law, with any doubt resolved against granting citizenship.