Khu v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Alfred Bun Tho Khu filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The core of the dispute revolves around whether his subsequent departure from the Philippines violated the continuous residence requirement stipulated in his sworn petition and in Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner filed his naturalization petition on January 21, 1958. He departed for the United States on June 7, 1959, and returned on October 15, 1959, prior to the scheduled hearing. The Court of First Instance granted the petition on April 19, 1960. Subsequently, on July 18, 1962, petitioner moved to take his oath of citizenship. The Republic opposed this motion, leading to the denial of the motion by the lower court on May 7, 1963, on the grounds of violation of the continuous residence requirement. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant seeks to overturn the order denying his motion to take the oath of citizenship. He argues that the issue of his qualifications is res judicata by the time of the oath-taking hearing. The oppositor-appellee, the Republic of the Philippines, contends that the petitioner's absence from the country for over four months between the filing of his petition and his admission to citizenship constitutes a violation of his sworn commitment and Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, thereby disqualifying him from citizenship.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's absence from the Philippines from June 7, 1959, to October 15, 1959, constituted a violation of his sworn commitment to maintain continuous residence. Whether the issue of the petitioner's qualifications for naturalization is already res judicata at the stage of the hearing preparatory to oathtaking.
Ruling
The motion to take oath as a Filipino citizen is denied, affirming the order appealed from.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of continuous residence: The petitioner's absence from the Philippines for over four months, from June 7, 1959, to October 15, 1959, after filing his petition for naturalization, constituted a clear violation of his sworn commitment to reside continuously in the Philippines. Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires such continuous residence from the date of filing the petition up to the time of admission to citizenship. This commitment was explicitly stated in paragraph 10 of his sworn petition. The Court, citing Uytengsu vs. Republic, held that this requirement pertains to actual and substantial residence, which was not met by the petitioner's extended absence. Such a violation reflects adversely on his moral character, a prerequisite for acquiring citizenship. On the issue of res judicata: The claim that the matter of qualifications is already res judicata at the stage of the hearing preparatory to oathtaking is untenable. It is a settled principle that during the hearing on the petition to take the oath, any question affecting the qualifications of the applicant may still be raised and considered. This was affirmed by the Court in cases such as Lim Hok Albano vs. Republic and Ong Ching Guan vs. Republic. Therefore, the trial court was still empowered to pass upon the petitioner's qualifications, including his compliance with the continuous residence requirement, even after the initial grant of the petition.
Main Doctrine
An applicant for naturalization who leaves the Philippines for an extended period during the pendency of the proceedings, thereby violating the sworn commitment of continuous residence, demonstrates a lack of good moral character, disqualifying them from acquiring Philippine citizenship. The issue of qualifications remains open for determination even at the stage of the hearing for oath-taking.