G.R. No. L-4551 January 30, 1953
Chan Kim Lian alias Jose U. Chan, petitioner-appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

On July 26, 1946, petitioner-appellant Chan Kim Lian filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. During the hearing, after the petitioner testified, the oppositor-appellee (Republic) moved to dismiss the petition on two grounds: (1) the petitioner lacked the required one-year residence in Misamis Oriental immediately preceding the filing, and (2) he failed to prove ownership of real property worth at least P5,000 or a known lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. The trial court dismissed the petition on September 6, 1950, for lack of jurisdiction, citing the absence of the one-year residence and the property qualification. The petitioner appealed.
The evidence showed the petitioner arrived in the Philippines in 1915 at age seven with his father, who previously resided in Mambajao, Misamis Oriental, and owned real properties there. The petitioner lived with his father, was baptized Catholic, completed elementary school in Mambajao, and after his father’s death in 1933, managed the family real properties in Camiguin Island, Misamis Oriental, until their division among heirs in 1950. His children were all born in Mambajao and attended school there. Before the war, he was a member of the parent-teacher association and treasurer of the rural credit association in Mambajao. He was in Cotabato on business when the Japanese invasion occurred and returned to Misamis Oriental around March or April, 1946. The oppositor contended his absence during the Japanese occupation resulted in loss of residence in Misamis Oriental.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for naturalization on the grounds of lack of one-year residence and failure to prove the property qualification.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. On the issue of residence, the Court held the petitioner’s absence from Misamis Oriental during the Japanese occupation did not constitute loss of residence. His stay in Cotabato was sufficiently caused by the war, as he was a guerrilla afraid to come into the open and lacked available transportation to Mambajao. The evidence did not show an intent to abandon his residence, especially since he regularly returned to Mambajao before the war to manage his father’s estates and was in Cotabato merely for business. More than mere absence is required to lose residence. The Court also noted the trial court erred in pronouncing on the petitioner’s qualifications before the final termination of the hearing, as admitted by the oppositor. The case was remanded for further proceedings without costs.