GR L 17053; (October, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17053. October 30, 1962. GAVINO LAO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, opponent-appellant.
FACTS
Gavino Lao filed a verified petition for naturalization on April 22, 1958, amended on June 21, 1958, in the Court of First Instance of Leyte. He averred that he possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Revised Naturalization Law. The Provincial Fiscal objected on jurisdictional grounds. After trial, the lower court rendered a decree on March 2, 1959, finding Lao qualified to become a naturalized Filipino citizen.
The Republic appealed, contesting Lao’s qualification. The Government’s opposition centered on Lao’s moral character and conduct. It was established that from 1949 until April 18, 1958—a period of almost eight years—Lao cohabited with Ricarda Javier without the benefit of marriage. During this common-law relationship, they begot three children: Ediltrudes (born 1950), Joaquin Cornelios (born 1952), and Margarita (born 1958). Lao married Javier in a civil ceremony only on April 18, 1958, merely four days before filing his original petition for naturalization.
ISSUE
Whether Gavino Lao possessed the requisite proper and irreproachable conduct and good moral character necessary for naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decree and denied the petition for naturalization. The legal logic is anchored on the statutory requirement that an applicant must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period of residence. The Court held that an eight-year period of cohabitation without marriage, resulting in three illegitimate children, constitutes conduct that is far from proper and irreproachable. This behavior directly contravenes the legal and social norms on family relations and demonstrates a lack of good moral character, which is a fundamental qualification.
Lao’s defense—that the community believed they were legally married and that the subsequent civil marriage showed his intent to comply with the law—was deemed insufficient. The belated marriage, performed only days before the petition, could not retroactively cleanse the prolonged period of illicit cohabitation. The Court cited precedents, such as Sy Kiam vs. Republic and Tak Ng vs. Republic, which consistently held that such common-law relationships disqualify an applicant. Additionally, the Court noted Lao’s annual income of only P1,600 as a businessman, which it found not to be lucrative, further supporting the denial. Consequently, Lao failed to meet the stringent qualifications for naturalization.