IN MATTER OF PETITION OF WILFRED UYTENGSU TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF PHILIPPINE. WILFRED UYTENGSU v. REPUBLIC, GR No. L-6379, 1954-09-29
Facts:
Petitioner-appellee was born, of Chinese parents, in
Dumaguete, Negros Oriental on October 6, 1927. He began his primary education
at the Saint Theresa's College in said municipality. Subsequently, he attended
the Little Flower of Jesus Academy, then the San Carlos College and, still
later the Siliman University all in the same locality where he completed the secondary
course. Early in 1946, he studied, for one semester, in the Mapua Institute of
Technology, in Manila. Soon after, he went to the United States,... where, from
1947 to 1950, he was enrolled in the Leland Stanford Junior University, in
California, and was graduated, in 1950, with the degree of Bachelor of Science.
In April of the same year he returned to the Philippines for four (4) months
vacation.
Then, to be exact, on July 15, 1950, his present application
for naturalization was filed.
Forthwith, he returned to the United States and took a
postgraduate course, in chemical engineering, in another educational
institution, in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He finished this course in July 1951; but
did not return to the Philippines until October 13, 1951.
The CFI of Cebu ruled in favor of petitioner. The Solicitor
General, who maintains the negative, has appealed from said judgment.
Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 reads as follows:
"Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship
shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by
two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname, his
present and former place of residence; his occupation; the place and date of
his birth; whether single or married and if the father of children, the name,
age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of the children; the
approximate date of his arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of
debarkation, and if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a
declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the
same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions
of this Act; that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this
Act, and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of
the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine
citizenship.”
In conformity with this provision, petitioner stated in
paragraph 13 of his application:
"* * * I will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of my petition up to the time of my admission to Philippine citizenship."
Petitioner contends, and the lower court held, that the word
"residence", as used in the aforesaid provision of the Naturalization
Law, is synonymous with domicile, which, once acquired, is not lost by physical
absence, until another domicile is obtained, and that, from 1946 to 1951, he
continued to be domiciled in, and hence a resident of the Philippines, his
purpose in staying in the United States, at that time, being, merely to study
therein.
Issues:
whether or not the application for naturalization may be
granted, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner left the Philippines
immediately after the filing of his petition and did not return until several
months after the first date set for the hearing thereof.
Ruling:
To become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization,
one must reside therein for not less than 10 years, except in some special
cases, in which 5 years of residence is sufficient.
Pursuant to the provision above quoted, he must, also, file
an application stating therein, among other things, that he "has the
qualifications required" by law. Inasmuch as these qualifications include
the residence requirement already referred to, it follows that the applicant
must prove that he is a resident of the Philippines at the time, not only of
the filing of the application, but, also, of its hearing. If the residence thus
required is the actual or constructive permanent home, otherwise known as legal
residence or domicile, then the applicant must be domiciled in the Philippines
on both dates.
Consequently, when section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473
imposes upon the applicant the duty to state in his sworn application "that
he will reside continuously in the Philippines" in the intervening period,
it cannot refer merely to the need of an uninterrupted domicile or legal
residence, irrespective of actual residence, for said legal residence or
domicile is obligatory under the law, even in the absence of the requirement
contained in said clause, and, it is well settled that, whenever possible, a
legal provision must not be so construed as to be a useless surplusage, and,
accordingly, meaningless, in the sense of adding nothing to the law or having
no effect whatsoever thereon. This consequences may be avoided only by
construing the clause in question as demanding actual residence in the
Philippines from the filing of the petition for naturalization to its
determination by the court.
To be a resident one must be physically present in that place for a longer or shorter period of time. "The essential distinction between residence and domicile is this: the first involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which he has taken up his abode ceases; the other has no such intent, the abiding is animo manendi. One may seek a place for purposes of pleasure, of business, or of health. If his intent be to remain it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is accomplished, it is his residence. Perhaps the most satisfactory definition is that one is a resident of a place from which his departure is indefinite as to time, definite as to purpose; and for this purpose he has made the place his temporary home.
In the case at bar, the Government has not had any chance
whatsoever to thus keep a watchful eye on petitioner herein. Immediately after
the filing of his application and notwithstanding the explicit promise therein
made by him, under oath, to the effect that he would reside continuously in the
Philippines "from the date of the filing of his petition up to the time of
his admission to Philippine citizenship" he returned to the United States,
where he stayed, continuously, until October 13, 1951. For this reason, when
this case was called for hearing, for the first time, on July 12, 1951, his
counsel had to move for continuance. The adverse effect of such absence upon
the opportunity needed by the Government to observe petitioner herein was
enhanced by the fact that, having been born in the Philippines, where he
finished his primary and secondary education, petitioner did not have to file,
and did not file, a declaration of intention prior to the filing of his
petition for naturalization. Thus, the Government had no previous notice of his
intention to apply for naturalization until the filing of his petition and
could not make the requisite investigation prior thereto.
Petitioner herein has not complied with the requirements of section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, and with the aforementioned promise made by him in his application, and, accordingly, is not entitled, in the present proceedings, to a judgment in his favor.
Comments
Post a Comment