Ng v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Tak Ng, also known as Tedy Ng, born in Manila on January 9, 1922, applied for naturalization. He had resided in the Philippines since birth and was employed as a salesman with an annual salary exceeding P2,200.00. He had been cohabiting with Leonarda Cabacungan since 1951, with whom he had three children, and they married on May 15, 1957. Petitioner obtained clearances from various government agencies. However, he had a prior conviction on October 29, 1948, by the Court of First Instance of Manila for profiteering, for which he was fined P50.00 and subsequently reprimanded and warned by the Deportation Board on February 8, 1957. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila denied petitioner's application for naturalization on August 10, 1957, citing his conviction for profiteering and the false statements made in his declaration of intention regarding his marital status and children. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the denial of his naturalization application.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's conviction for profiteering disqualifies him from naturalization. Whether the petitioner's cohabitation with Leonarda Cabacungan without the benefit of marriage and the subsequent marriage constitute a lack of good moral character disqualifying him from naturalization. Whether the petitioner's false statements in his declaration of intention and petition for naturalization regarding his marital status and children amount to perjury and demonstrate a lack of good moral character.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, denying the petitioner's application for naturalization.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction for profiteering: The Court held that profiteering is a crime involving moral turpitude. It reasoned that profiteering affects the price of prime commodities and impacts the welfare of citizens, especially the poor. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for his guilty plea to the profiteering charge unconvincing, stating that it is difficult to believe he would allow his name to be stained with a criminal record if he had no involvement, especially since price limits are generally known to stores. Therefore, having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, the petitioner is disqualified from naturalization. On the issue of cohabitation and marriage: The Court found that the petitioner's cohabitation with Leonarda Cabacungan for six years without the benefit of marriage, during which they had three children, clearly indicated bad character, disqualifying him from becoming a Filipino citizen. The Court dismissed the petitioner's contention that he could not marry earlier due to Leonarda's age and parental objections, noting that he could have legally married her once she reached the age of majority and that he made no effort to do so until almost a year after filing his naturalization petition. The subsequent marriage was deemed to have been entered into for convenience to circumvent legal provisions regarding irreproachable character and good moral conduct, and it did not cure his disqualification. On the issue of false statements in the declaration of intention and petition: The Court agreed with the lower court and the Solicitor General that the petitioner's statements in his declaration of intention and petition for naturalization, claiming to be single and childless when he had three children with Leonarda Cabacungan, constituted deliberate falsehoods amounting to perjury. This concealment of his true status under oath demonstrated a wanton disregard for truth, further evidencing a lack of good moral character that disables him from acquiring Philippine citizenship.
Main Doctrine
Conviction for profiteering, an offense involving moral turpitude, disqualifies an applicant from naturalization. Furthermore, making deliberate falsehoods under oath in a declaration of intention and petition for naturalization, such as concealing marital status and the existence of children, constitutes perjury and demonstrates a lack of good moral character, also disqualifying the applicant.