Lo Kio v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the petition for naturalization filed by Lo Kio, also known as Antonio Manly. The core issue revolves around whether the petitioner possessed the requisite good moral character as mandated by the Revised Naturalization Law, specifically Paragraph 3, Section 2 of the law. The lower court denied the petition solely on this ground. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner, Lo Kio, filed a petition for naturalization which was denied by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur on June 15, 1957. The denial was based on the petitioner's alleged lack of good moral character. Following the denial, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on July 5, 1957, which was subsequently denied by the court on July 16, 1957. The petitioner then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant contends that his subsequent marriage to Luisa Alejo on September 9, 1952, after cohabiting with her and fathering four children, cured his prior lack of moral character and qualified him for citizenship. The appeal also implicitly challenges the lower court's finding of lacking good moral character. Furthermore, the petitioner's compliance with the requirement to bring his minor son from China to the Philippines for schooling is also a point of contention, as the petitioner did not appear to have made efforts to do so.
Issue(s)
Whether the subsequent marriage of the petitioner to Luisa Alejo cured his lack of good moral character. Whether the petitioner complied with the requirement to provide for his minor son's education in the Philippines.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance denying the petition for naturalization is affirmed. The petitioner-appellant is not qualified for admission as a Filipino citizen.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of good moral character and subsequent marriage: The Court held that the petitioner-appellant's contention that his subsequent marriage to Luisa Alejo cured his lack of moral character is without merit. The Court reiterated its ruling in Sy Kiam vs. Republic, which held that the marriage of a petitioner to a woman with whom he had cohabited and begotten children out of wedlock, especially when done shortly before applying for naturalization, does not cure his lack of moral character. Such behavior, characterized by cohabitation and illicit relations without the benefit of marriage, falls short of the "proper and irreproachable conduct" mandated by the Revised Naturalization Law. The Court emphasized that this standard of conduct is expected not only by the Court but also by the community and the country, which is predominantly Christian and of Catholic faith. Openly cohabiting with a woman and maintaining illicit relations cannot be regarded as proper and irreproachable conduct. Therefore, the naturalization should have been refused. On the issue of providing for the minor son's education: The Court found another reason to deny the petition. It appeared that five years prior to the filing of the petition (in 1949), the petitioner-appellant's son in China was a minor of 16 years of age and was still living. The petitioner-appellant did not appear to have exerted any effort to bring his son to the Philippines to enroll him in schools, as required by Paragraph 6, Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The Court stated that the child's minority and presence in China, without any showing of justifiable reason, did not excuse the petitioner-appellant from complying with this statutory requirement. This failure, along with the lack of good moral character, justified the denial of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The subsequent marriage of a naturalization applicant to a woman with whom he had cohabited and begotten children out of wedlock does not cure his lack of good moral character, as such conduct falls short of the "proper and irreproachable conduct" required by the Revised Naturalization Law. Furthermore, failure to provide for a minor child's education in the Philippines without justifiable reason is a ground for denial.