G.R. No. L-11525, December 24, 1959
IN RE: Petition for Admission to be a Citizen of the Philippines. ANANDRAM VALIRAM DARGANI, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Anandram Valiram Dargani, a citizen of India, first came to the Philippines in June 1936. He left for India in 1941. In 1940, he began working as a salesman for his uncle’s company, Toloram Maljimar & Co., and was still employed in that capacity when he departed. While in India, he married an Indian citizen, and three of his four children were born there. He returned to the Philippines in 1947, alleging that his return was delayed until then due to the outbreak of World War II and the resumption of maritime transportation between the Philippines and India. He filed his declaration of intention to become a Philippine citizen on July 13, 1952, and his application for naturalization on July 15, 1955. Witnesses Josefina Floresca and Antonio Rillera testified that they had personally known him as a student since 1936 and since his return. The Court of First Instance of Baguio City denied his petition, citing two grounds: (1) he did not have the required ten years of continuous residence in the Philippines under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Naturalization Law), and (2) his witnesses did not personally know him during the entire ten-year period.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner-appellant complied with the requirement of “continuous residence” in the Philippines for at least ten years prior to filing his application for naturalization, considering his absence from the country from 1941 to 1947.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition. The Court held that while “continuous residence” does not require absolute, uninterrupted physical presence and may tolerate temporary absences if there is an animus revertendi (intent to return), the petitioner’s absence of six years (19411947) was not a short duration. During this period, he married and raised children in India. There was no evidence that he left properties or was personally engaged in business in the Philippines when he left in 1941; he was merely a salesman in his uncle’s company. The record did not disclose his purpose for leaving or any positive intention to return at the time of departure. Consequently, his six-year absence broke the continuity of his residence. Since he failed to meet the ten-year continuous residence requirement, the petition was properly denied. The Court deemed it unnecessary to address the issue regarding the competency of his witnesses.