G.R. No. L-4548 November 26, 1952
In the matter of the petition of Domingo Dy alias William Dy Chinco to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. DOMINGO DY alias WILLIAM DY CHINCO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellee Domingo Dy, alias William Dy Chinco, possesses all qualifications for naturalization but did not file the required declaration of intention one year prior to his petition. He sought exemption from this requirement under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Revised Naturalization Law), which applies to those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty years or more before filing their application. The petitioner was born in Naga, Camarines Sur, on May 19, 1915. At age seven or eight, in 1923, he went to China with his mother to study. Although he returned to the Philippines during school vacations, he did not come back to reside permanently until 1937. The period from 1923 to 1937, which is fourteen years, was spent studying in China. If this period is not counted as part of his continuous residence in the Philippines, he would have only resided continuously from 1937 to 1949 (the filing date of his petition), or twelve years. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur held that his residence was not lost or interrupted by his absence for study, thus deeming him to have continuously resided in the Philippines during that period.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which requires “continuous residence” in the Philippines for thirty years or more before the application.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the exemption under Section 6 requires actual and substantial residence, not merely legal residence. The purpose of the exemption is that such prolonged residence allows the applicant to be presumed to have learned the principles and imbibed the spirit of Philippine institutions, and allows the community and naturalization authorities ample opportunity to observe their conduct. The Court found no evidence regarding the residence of the petitioner’s father during the period from 1923 to 1937. As a minor, the petitioner’s legal residence follows that of his father, and without proof that his father resided in the Philippines during that time, it cannot be satisfactorily shown that the petitioner’s residence was in the Philippines. Furthermore, the period spent in China for study constituted an interruption of actual and substantial residence in the Philippines. Therefore, the petitioner did not meet the thirty-year continuous residence requirement and was not exempt from filing the declaration of intention.