Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > December 1959 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-13017 December 23, 1959 - IN RE: TAK NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

106 Phil 727:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13017. December 23, 1959.]

In the Matter of the Petition of TAK NG to be admitted a Citizen of the

Philippines. TAK NG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

Bausa, Ampil & Suarez for Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor E. D. Ignacio for Appellee.

SYLLABUS
1. WORDS AND PHRASES; "MORAL TURPITUDE" DEFINED. — "Moral turpitude" has
been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man (Traders &
General Ins. Co. v. Russell, Tex. Civ. App., 99 S.W. [2d] 1079) or conduct contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals (Marah v. State Bar of California, 210
Cal. 303, 291 P. 583).

2. NATURALIZATION; CONVICTION OF CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPIDE;

PROFITEERING. — Profiteering is an offense which involves moral turpitude
inasmuch as it affects the prices of prime commodities and goes to the life of the
citizens, especially those who are poor and with hardly the means to sustain
themselves. Hence, conviction of said crime disqualifies a petitioner from
naturalization as a Filipino citizen.

3. ID.; GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT; COHABITATION WITHOUT

BENEFIT OF MARRIAGE; EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE. — Petitioner’s act in
cohabiting with a woman for 6 years without the benefit of marriage clearly
inidcates his bad moral character, which disqualifies him from becoming a Filipino
citizen. (See Yu Lo v. Republic, 92 Phil., 105, 48 Off. Gaz. 4334; Yu Singco v.
Republic, 94 Phil., 191, 50 Off. Gaz. 104; Sy Kiam v. Republic, supra p. 224 Sec.
2[3], Com. Act No. 473) The fact that he married said woman subsequent to the
filing of his petition for naturalization in court did not thereby cure his
disqualification for lack of good moral character. (See Sy Kiam v. republic, supra.)

DECISION

BARRERA, J.:

This is an appeal taken from the decision dated August 10, 1957 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila (in Nat. Case No. 29932), denying petitioner’s application
for naturalization.
It appears that petitioner Tak Ng, also known as Teddy Ng, was born in Manila on
January 9, 1922. He resided in the Philippines since birth and has never gone
abroad. He is employed as a salesman in the St. George Grocery and Cold Store,
Inc., at 242 Quezon Boulevard, Manila, with a salary of more than P2,200.00 a
year. He was single when he filed his petition for naturalization on June 15, 1956,
although since 1951, he had been cohabiting extra-maritally with Leonarda
Cabacungan, with whom he had 3 children, namely, Adelaida, Anthony, and Alfred,
all surnamed Ng. He finally married her on May 15, 1957. He was able to secure
clearances from the Manila Police Department, the City Fiscal’s Office, the NBI, the
Bureau of Prisons, the NICA, the Bureau of Immigration, the Philippine
Constabulary, the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the CAFA,
the Anti-Dummy Board, and the Central Bank of the Philippines. However,
according to Exhibit O-1, he was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila
(in Crim. Case No. 6811) on October 29, 1948, of profiteering, 1 and sentenced to
pay a fine of P50.00 and, as a consequence, was reprimanded and warned by the
Deportation Board 1 on February 8, 1957 (Exh. 1-A). He speaks and writes English
and Tagalog. He does not own any real property in the Philippines. He believes in
the fundamental principles underlying the Constitution. He has evinced a sincere
desire to learn the customs and traditions of the Filipino people. He is not opposed
to any organized government, or affiliated with any association, or group of persons
who uphold and teach doctrines defending or advocating the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault, or assassination, for the success and predominance of
men’s ideas. He is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy. He is
in good health, and it is his intention in good faith to become a Filipino citizen.

As vouching witnesses, he presented Messrs. Hilario M. Uaje and Pedro Nieva, Jr.
Uaje declared that he knew petitioner for more than 11 years up to the time he
took the stand; and that he knew him as one who believes in the principles
underlying the Constitution and as a person of good moral character, with a fixed
income of P150.00 a month. Nieva, Jr., on the other hand, testified that he knew
petitioner since 1944 and had observed him to be a person attached to the
principles underlying the Constitution and disposed to the good order and happiness
of the Filipino people.
After reception of the evidence, the court, on August 10, 1957, rendered a decision
denying petitioner’s application for naturalization, on the grounds that: (1) he was
convicted of profiteering, on October 29, 1948, by the Court of First Instance of
Manila, and sentenced to pay a fine of P50.00, as a result of which, he was charged
before the Deportation Board which reprimanded and warned him on February 8,
1957; and (2) he falsely stated in his declaration of intention dated November 27,
1954, that he had no children, when in fact he had already 3 at the time with
Leonarda Cabacungan.

As to the first ground above-stated, appellant contends that his conviction by the
Court of First Instance of Manila for profiteering, on October 29, 1948, as a result of
which, he was fined P50.00, should not be taken against him, because he was a
mere employee of the St. George Grocery and Cold Store, Inc. at the time; that he
had nothing to do with the fixing of the selling price of commodities sold therein;
and that his having pleaded guilty to the information charging him of the offense,
was upon the advice of his lawyer and the manager of said establishment.

The trial court did not accept this explanation and we find no reason to do
otherwise. It is hard to believe that appellant would suffer to have his name stained
with a criminal record by pleading guilty to said information, if he had absolutely
nothing to do with the offense charged. As the lower court observed, it is not easy
to believe that petitioner did not know that he was selling over the price fixed by
the authorities, as these price limits are made known to the stores.

Is profiteering a crime involving moral turpitude which disqualifies petitioner from

admission to Philippine citizenship? We think so. "Moral turpitude" has been defined
as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a
man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and man (Traders & General Ins. Co.
v. Russell, Tex. Civ. App., 99 S.W. [2d] 1079) or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals (Marah v. State Bar of California, 210 Cal. 303,
291 P. 583).
There can be no doubt that profiteering, an offense which is severely and heavily
penalized with imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more
than P10,000.00, or by both, 2 involves moral turpitude, inasmuch as it affects the
price of prime commodities and goes to the life of the citizens, especially those who
are poor and with hardly the means to sustain themselves. 3 Having been convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude, petitioner is disqualified from naturalization as
a Filipino citizen. 4

In respect of the second ground, petitioner claims that he failed to marry Leonarda
Cabacungan in 1951, because she was then only 17 or 18 years of age, and her
parents objected to their marriage because he was a Chinese citizen.

The contention deserves no serious consideration. Assuming that Leonarda’s

parents disapproved of petitioner’s marriage to her, he could have legally married
her had he really wanted to, when Leonarda was already 18 years of age, since
under the law, 5 only the advice of her parents is required which, if not given, does
not prevent the celebration of the marriage, 3 months after the completion of the
publication of the application for marriage license. Petitioner never made any
attempt or effort to marry Leonarda, but chose instead to live with her openly for 6
years without the benefit of marriage, begetting with her 3 children, all out of
wedlock. It was not until May 15, 1957, that is, almost 1 year after he had filed his
petition for naturalization in court that he decided to marry her which, according to
the Solicitor General, was, evidently, entered into merely "for convenience and with
the avowed purpose of circumventing the provisions of our naturalization laws
regarding irreproachable character and good moral conduct." cralaw virtua1aw library

Needless to say, the act of petitioner in cohabiting with Leonarda for 6 years
without the benefit of marriage, clearly indicates his bad moral character, which
disqualifies him from becoming a Filipino citizen. 6 The fact that petitioner married
her on May 16, 1957, did not thereby cure his disqualification for lack of good moral
character. 7

We agree with the trial court and the Solicitor General that petitioner’s statement in
his declaration of intention and in his petition for naturalization that he was single
and that he did not have any child at all, when in truth and in fact, he had then
already 3 children with Leonarda Cabacungan, is a deliberate falsehood amounting
to perjury, as he concealed his true status under oath and, likewise, shows
petitioner’s wanton disregard for truth, hence, lack of good moral character
disabling him from acquiring Philippine citizenship.

Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment of the court a quo, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the petitioner appellant. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,

J. B. L., Endencia and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. Executive Order No. 91. s. 1946.

1a Deportation Case No. R-211.

2. Sec. 3, Com. Act No. 600.

3. In People v. Tiu Ua, 96 Phil., 738, 51 Off. Gaz., [4], 1863, it was held that
profiteering affects the poor people in general, and that any raise in the price above
that authorized by law, causes a great hardship to the country.

4. Section 4 (d) Com. Act No. 473.

5. Art. 62, Civil Code of the Philippines.

6. See Yu Lo v. Republic, 92 Phil., 105, 48 Off. Gaz., 4334; Yu Singco v. Republic,

94 Phil., 191, 50 Off. Gaz., 104; Sy Kiam v. Republic, 102 Phil., 575, 54 Off. Gaz.,
3802; Lo Kio v. Republic, supra, p. 224, Sec. 2(3), Com. Act No. 473.
7. See Sy Kiam v. Republic and Lo Kio v. Republic, both supra.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

 ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

December-1959 Jurisprudence

 G.R. No. L-12629 December 9, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO

ARAQUEL

106 Phil 677

 G.R. No. L-12950 December 9, 1959 - BENJAMIN CELESTIAL v. SOUTHERN
MINDANAO EXPERIMENTAL STATION

106 Phil 696

 G.R. No. L-13303 December 10, 1959 - ANG BUN PHEK alias KUN PUE GUAN v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

106 Phil 702

 G.R. No. L-11855 December 23, 1959 - LEE SUAN AY v. EMILIO GALANG

106 Phil 706

 G.R. No. L-12088 December 23, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO
SUMAGUINA MACARANDANG

106 Phil 713

  G.R. No. L-12707 December 23, 1959 - DEMETRIO BUNAYOG v. ANACLETA
TUNAS

106 Phil 715

 G.R. No. L-12764 December 23, 1959 - EMILIO CANO v. DOMINGO M.

CABANGON

106 Phil 718

 G.R. No. L-12948 December 23, 1959 - MARCELO VITAL v. PASTOR MAGTOTO

106 Phil 722

 G.R. No. L-12991 December 23, 1959 - F. F. HAMLIN v. COLLECTOR OF

INTERNAL REVENUE

106 Phil 723

 G.R. No. L-13017 December 23, 1959 - IN RE: TAK NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.

106 Phil 727

 G.R. No. L-13715 December 23, 1959 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. CEBU PORTLAND
CEMENT CO.

106 Phil 732

 G.R. No. L-11525 December 24, 1959 - IN RE: ANANDRAM VALIRAM DARGANI
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

106 Phil 735

 G.R. No. L-12207 December 24, 1959 - JUAN PALACIOS v. MARIA CATIMBANG
PALACIOS

106 Phil 739

 G.R. No. L-13920 December 24, 1959 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP v. DANIEL M. M.

SALCEDO

106 Phil 742

 G.R. No. L-13932 December 24, 1959 - JOSE V. DE LOS SANTOS v. NICASIO
YATCO

106 Phil 745

  G.R. No. L-13272 December 26, 1959 - TRINIDAD OCAMPO-CAÑIZA v. FELIX
MARTINEZ

106 Phil 750

 G.R. No. L-12408 December 28, 1959 - LEE CHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

106 Phil 755

 G.R. No. L-13010 December 28, 1959 - JUANITO N. FERRER v. ALFONSO

TABORA

106 Phil 759

 G.R. No. L-14022 December 28, 1959 - IN RE: YU KHENG CHIAU v. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHIL.

106 Phil 762

 G.R. No. L-14190 December 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRECITO
BULALAKE

106 Phil 767

 G.R. No. L-9343 December 29, 1959 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v.
VALENTIN R. LIM

106 Phil 771

 G.R. Nos. L-10994 & L-11012 December 29, 1959 - GOLAY-BUCHEL & CIE. v.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

106 Phil 777

 G.R. No. L-11895 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: JESUS J. GO v. REPUBLIC OF

THE PHIL.

106 Phil 788

 G.R. No. L-11968 December 29, 1959 - DOROTEO ONOFRE v. PASTOR P. REYES

106 Phil 790

 G.R. No. L-12231 December 29, 1959 - ANG LIONG v. COMMISSIONER OF

IMMIGRATION

106 Phil 793

 G.R. No. L-12277 December 29, 1959 - BENITO ORIT v. BALRODGAN COMPANY

106 Phil 800

 G.R. No. L-12357 December 29, 1959 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION

v. JOSE G. DE CASTRO

106 Phil 803

 G.R. No. L-12793 December 29, 1959 - MEDINA BROTHERS & COMPANY v.
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

106 Phil 808

 G.R. No. L-13025 December 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO
ROGADO

106 Phil 816

 G.R. No. L-13065 December 29, 1959 - LINO SALES v. JOSE SANTOS

106 Phil 825

 G.R. No. L-13067 December 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v.

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

106 Phil 829

 G.R. No. L-13080 December 29, 1959 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. v.

TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO.

106 Phil 837

 G.R. No. L-13126 December 29, 1959 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES v. SOTERO
CABAHUG

106 Phil 839

 G.R. No. L-13273 December 29, 1959 - EDILIO L. BALUYOT v. COURT OF

APPEALS

106 Phil 844

 G.R. No. L-13354 December 29, 1959 - APOLINARIO DE LA CRUZ v. CITY

FISCAL

106 Phil 851

  G.R. No. L-13361 December 29, 1959 - ROSARIO GREY VDA. DE ALBAR v.
JOSEFA FABIE DE CARANGDANG

106 Phil 855

 G.R. No. L-13433 December 29, 1959 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. JUAN V.

ALDEA

106 Phil 866

 G.R. No. L-13547 December 29, 1959 - JOAQUIN T. ORTEGA v. BAUANG

FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION

106 Phil 867

 G.R. No. L-13926 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: FELISA F. HARRIS v. ROSE
HARRIS

106 Phil 873

Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz