Lao v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the naturalization of Gavino Lao, also known as Dowa. The Government opposed his petition, arguing that he lacked the requisite qualifications, specifically good moral character and proper conduct, due to his cohabitation with Ricarda Javier for approximately eight years without a valid marriage and fathering three children with her during this period. The Government also questioned the lucrativeness of his business income. 2. Procedural History: Gavino Lao filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Leyte on April 22, 1958, later amending it on June 21, 1958. The Provincial Fiscal of Leyte objected to the amended petition on jurisdictional grounds. Following a trial, the Court of First Instance of Leyte issued a decree on March 2, 1959, granting Lao's petition and finding him qualified for naturalization. The Government subsequently appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: The Government, as the opponent-appellant, appeals the lower court's decree granting naturalization. The core of the Government's argument is that Lao's conduct, specifically his eight-year cohabitation with Ricarda Javier without marriage and fathering three children out of wedlock before a civil ceremony four days prior to filing his petition, demonstrates a lack of proper and irreproachable conduct as required by the Revised Naturalization Law. Additionally, the Government contends his annual business income of P1,600 is not sufficiently lucrative. These alleged deficiencies, according to the Government, disqualify Lao from becoming a naturalized Filipino citizen.
Issue(s)
Whether Gavino Lao possesses the qualification of having proper and irreproachable conduct throughout his residence in the Philippines. Whether Gavino Lao possesses the qualification of having a lucrative trade or profession.
Ruling
The decree granting the petition for naturalization is reversed, and the petition is denied. Costs are against the appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper and irreproachable conduct: The Court held that the appellee's eight-year cohabitation with Ricarda Javier without the benefit of clergy, during which three children were born out of wedlock, constituted conduct far from being proper and irreproachable as required by the Revised Naturalization Law. The subsequent marriage, solemnized only four days before the filing of the petition, did not cure this defect in conduct. The Court emphasized that the law requires such conduct to be demonstrated throughout the entire period of residence, not just at the time of application. On the issue of lucrative income: The Court found that the appellee's annual income as a businessman was only P1,600, which was not considered lucrative under the requirements of the Revised Naturalization Law. This lack of a lucrative income further disqualified him from becoming a naturalized Filipino citizen. The combination of improper conduct and insufficient income led to the denial of his petition.
Main Doctrine
The Revised Naturalization Law requires an applicant to possess all qualifications and none of the disqualifications, including having proper and irreproachable conduct and a lucrative income. The Court held that an eight-year cohabitation with a woman without the benefit of marriage, during which three children were born, constitutes conduct that is not proper and irreproachable, notwithstanding a subsequent civil marriage four days before filing the naturalization petition. Furthermore, an annual income of P1,600 was deemed not lucrative.