G.R. No. L-7054; April 29, 1955
LUIS UY, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

On February 21, 1951, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision granting the petition of Luis Uy for Philippine citizenship, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530 . No appeal was taken from this decision. On April 6, 1952, without advising the court or the Office of the Solicitor General, Luis Uy left the Philippines for the United States. His stated purposes were: (1) to submit himself to a medical check-up for a recurrent stomach ulcer, having been advised by his personal physicians to go to the United States for a thorough check-up by a specialist, Dr. Frank Co Tui; and (2) to strengthen business ties for the Associated Trading Corporation, of which he was the general manager. He returned after three months. A little over two years from the promulgation of the decision, Uy petitioned the trial court to allow him to take his oath of allegiance. The trial court denied his petition in an order dated August 14, 1953, holding that he failed to comply with Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530 , which requires that an applicant not leave the Philippines during the two-year period from the promulgation of the decision granting citizenship. Uy appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Luis Uy should be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen despite having left the Philippines during the two-year probationary period prescribed by Republic Act No. 530 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying the petition. The Court held that Uy failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530 that an applicant “has not left the Philippines” during the two-year period from the promulgation of the decision granting citizenship. The purpose of this probationary period is for the government and community to observe the applicant’s conduct and ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, including continuous dedication to a lawful calling and avoidance of prejudicial acts. The Court found that Uy’s absence was not necessary to save his life, as he was never in a critical condition, and the primary object of his trip appeared to be business, with medical check-up being secondary. The Court also denied Uy’s alternative prayer to be allowed to take the oath after a new two-year period from his return, ruling that by absenting himself, he forfeited his right to citizenship under the final decision. The Court suggested that while the requirement of continuous presence might admit of exceptions (e.g., if the absence is at the instance of the government, due to forcible removal, or to undergo a life-saving operation), Uy’s case did not fall under such exceptions. The judgment granting naturalization, though final, could not be executed due to this non-compliance.