Ujano v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Melecio Clarino Ujano, a 66-year-old individual born of Filipino parents in the Philippines, had previously acquired American citizenship by naturalization after residing in the United States for over 20 years. He returned to the Philippines on November 10, 1960, for a temporary stay, owning significant property and receiving a U.S. pension. He expressed an intention to renounce his U.S. allegiance. 2. Procedural History: Ujano filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur to reacquire his Philippine citizenship. The lower court denied his petition, finding that he had not met the statutory six-month residence requirement prior to filing. This decision was appealed by Ujano to the higher court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Melecio Clarino Ujano, sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the lower court's denial of his petition, which was based on the interpretation that his temporary visitor status in the Philippines did not satisfy the six-month residence requirement stipulated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 for reacquiring citizenship.
Issue(s)
Whether the 'residence' requirement of at least six months under Commonwealth Act No. 63 is satisfied by a petitioner who is admitted to the Philippines only as a temporary visitor.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance denying the petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship is affirmed. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court (SC) held that 'residence' for the purpose of reacquiring citizenship under Section 3(1) of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 63 is synonymous with 'legal residence' or 'domicile.' Applying the precedent in Wilfredo Uytengsu v. Republic, the Court explained that domicile is the actual or constructive permanent home characterized by animus manendi, or the intent to remain and return. An alien admitted as a temporary visitor, whether for business, pleasure, or health, cannot establish a legal domicile because the duration of their stay is fixed and transient by nature. The Court emphasized that while Congress may have liberalized the requirements for reacquiring citizenship, it did not alter the technical connotation of 'residence' used in the Revised Naturalization Law (CA 473). The Court concluded that Ujano's presence as a temporary visitor was conduct indicative of a temporary stay rather than a permanent domicile. Therefore, the only way for the petitioner to meet the requirement is to first secure a quota for permanent residence to satisfy the legal definition of the residency period.
Main Doctrine
The six-month residence requirement for reacquiring Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63 necessitates a domicile, characterized by the intention to reside permanently and actual presence, and does not include mere temporary presence as a visitor.