GR L 5867; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5867; April 29, 1954
Sy Tian Lai alias Ruperto Sy Tangco, petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
On September 19, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur denied the petition for naturalization filed by Sy Tian Lai. The denial was based solely on the ground that the petitioner was not of good moral character because he was cohabiting with a Filipino woman in his house and had three children with her, without the benefit of marriage. Before this decision became final, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on October 31, 1951. He alleged that he had married the woman on October 20, 1951, and prayed for a new trial to prove the marriage, for reconsideration of the decision in his favor, or, alternatively, for the denial to be without prejudice. The court set aside its original decision and allowed the presentation of additional evidence. However, on December 21, 1951, the court rendered a supplementary decision reiterating the denial of the petition. It held that the petitioner’s immoral life for a period of five years was not cured by his subsequent marriage. The petitioner appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s subsequent marriage to the woman he previously cohabited with cures the defect in his moral character, thereby making him eligible for naturalization.
RULING
No. The appealed decision is affirmed, but without prejudice to the filing of a new petition. The Supreme Court cited its precedent in Yu Lo vs. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-4725), which held that cohabitation and begetting children without marriage demonstrates conduct that does not meet the community’s moral standards, a requirement for naturalization. While the Solicitor General manifested that the petition could now be granted since the petitioner had legalized his relationship, the Court distinguished this case technically because the marriage was already proven on record. However, the Court expressed concern that the petitioner’s haste to marry before the decision became final was an attempt to nullify the effect of the adverse ruling and avoid the formalities of a renewed petition. To forestall any suspicious design and to ensure earnest intent, the Court affirmed the denial without prejudice. The petitioner may file a new petition, and the parties may utilize the evidence already presented in addition to any new evidence.