GR L 15998; (May, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15998. May 26, 1964. GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
On March 20, 1957, petitioner Guillermo Antonio Ivanovich was granted Philippine citizenship, subject to the two-year probationary period mandated by Republic Act No. 530 . Before this period lapsed, he filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to be allowed to take the oath of allegiance. The court denied his petition on March 24, 1959, prompting this appeal. The denial was based on his departure from the Philippines during the probationary period.
During the two-year period, petitioner sought court permission to leave the country, stating he was chosen by the Board of Directors of the Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc. to represent it abroad to contact reinsurers, with an intended absence of at least three months. The court denied this request on July 6, 1957, citing the prohibition in Republic Act No. 530 . Undeterred, petitioner wrote to the Solicitor General on July 30, 1957, stating that despite the personal cost, he had to make the trip for his company. He subsequently left the Philippines on August 6, 1957, and returned on October 2, 1957.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner’s departure from the Philippines during the mandatory two-year probationary period constitutes a violation of Republic Act No. 530 , thereby disqualifying him from taking the oath of Philippine citizenship.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the petition. The legal logic centers on the strict statutory requirement under Republic Act No. 530 , which prohibits an applicant granted naturalization from leaving the Philippines during the two-year probationary period before taking the oath. This requirement is designed to ensure the applicant’s continuous residence and genuine attachment to the country during a critical observation period.
Petitioner’s contention that his trip was an official government mission is unavailing. His own letter to the Solicitor General unequivocally stated his primary purpose was to fulfill his corporate duties for Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc., where he served as Executive Vice President and General Manager. The Court found that a subsequent letter from former President Carlos P. Garcia, which petitioner invoked to suggest an official designation to observe economic trends abroad, was merely accommodative and did not constitute a formal appointment. Crucially, the trip was to be at petitioner’s own expense, and no official appointment was ever issued. The Court held that this could not legitimize a departure that was fundamentally for private business interests, nor could it override the clear mandate and intent of the law. By voluntarily leaving the country within the prohibited period, petitioner committed a disqualifying act. The law admits no exception for such self-initiated travel, regardless of the purported economic benefits. Therefore, his failure to comply with the continuous residence requirement warranted the denial of his petition to take the oath.