GR L 9983; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9983; April 22, 1957
In the matter of the petition of SANTOS O. CHUA to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. SANTOS O. CHUA, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Santos O. Chua, the petitioner-appellant, filed a petition for naturalization. The Court of First Instance of Manila denied his petition on the sole ground that in 1947, he married his wife Ligaya Cheng before a Chinese consul in accordance with Chinese custom, “instead of before a Philippine authority.” The lower court held that this showed he “has not during the entire period of his residence conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner in his relation with the constituted government.” The evidence showed that upon learning this 1947 marriage was not valid, the appellant took immediate steps to legalize his marital status by having a marriage ceremony performed before Judge Crisanto Aragon of the Manila municipal court. This legal marriage occurred more than one year before he filed his petition for naturalization.
ISSUE
Whether the appellant’s initial marriage before a Chinese consul and his subsequent act of legalizing it under Philippine law disqualify him from naturalization on the grounds of not having conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the lower court and granted the appellant’s petition for naturalization. The Court held that the appellant’s act of legalizing his marriage under Philippine laws even before filing his petition evinced a desire to embrace Philippine customs and follow its laws. The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings (Yu Lo vs. Republic and Sy Tian Lai vs. Republic) where petitions were denied because the petitioners married only after an adverse decision or while their petition was pending, which could suggest an intent to circumvent the law. Here, since the legal marriage preceded the filing of the petition, no such suspicious design could be charged. The Court also found no merit in the Solicitor-General’s objection regarding the education of the appellant’s children, as they were of tender age when the petition was filed. The naturalization was granted subject to the conditions of the Revised Naturalization Law.