G.R. No. L-21828; January 22, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ALFRED BUN THO KHU, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ALFRED BUN THO KHU, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

On January 21, 1958, Alfred Bun Tho Khu filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila. In his sworn petition, he stated, as required by law, that he would reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of filing up to his admission to citizenship. The hearing was initially set for December 19, 1959. However, prior to that date, on June 7, 1959, petitioner left for the United States. He returned on October 15, 1959, in time for the hearing (which was later reset to March 5, 1960). After the hearing, a decision was rendered on April 19, 1960, granting his petition for naturalization. On July 18, 1962, petitioner filed a motion to take the oath of allegiance. The Republic opposed this motion on October 10, 1962, arguing that petitioner was not of good moral character because he violated his sworn commitment to continuous residence by leaving the country. The lower court denied the motion for oathtaking on May 7, 1963, holding that petitioner’s absence from June 7 to October 15, 1959, violated Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Alfred Bun Tho Khu is qualified to take the oath of allegiance and be admitted as a Filipino citizen, considering his absence from the Philippines for more than four months after filing his petition for naturalization, in violation of his sworn declaration of continuous residence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the motion to take the oath. The Court held that petitioner’s absence from the Philippines for over four months (from June 7 to October 15, 1959) after filing his petition constituted a violation of Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which requires an applicant to state under oath that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the filing of the petition until admission to citizenship. Citing Uytengsu vs. Republic, the Court ruled that this requirement refers to actual and substantial residence and is not complied with by an absence of three months. By reneging on this solemn commitment under oath, petitioner demonstrated a lack of good moral character, which is a qualification for citizenship. The Court also rejected petitioner’s claim of res judicata, stating that at the stage of the hearing for oathtaking, any question affecting the applicant’s qualifications may be raised. Therefore, the motion to take the oath was denied.