Title
Ujano vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-22041
Decision Date
May 19, 1966
Melecio Ujano, a naturalized U.S. citizen, sought to reacquire Philippine citizenship but was denied due to his temporary visitor status, failing to meet the six-month residency requirement under Commonwealth Act No. 63.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22041)

Background Information

Ujano left the Philippines for the United States in 1927 and obtained American citizenship through naturalization after residing there for more than 20 years. He returned to the Philippines on November 10, 1960, and was granted temporary visitor status. At the time of his petition, he owned agricultural and residential property worth over P5,000. He also receives a monthly pension from the U.S. Social Security Administration. Notably, he has no criminal convictions and intends to renounce his allegiance to the United States.

Procedural History

Ujano filed his petition for the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The court denied the petition based primarily on the finding that Ujano did not satisfy the residency requirement mandated by law prior to filing his application.

Legal Issue

The specific legal issue under consideration is whether Ujano met the six-month residency requirement outlined in Section 3(1) of Commonwealth Act No. 63, which specifies that an individual must have resided in the Philippines for at least six months before applying for reacquisition of citizenship.

Court's Findings

The trial court commented that for reacquisition of citizenship, "residence" requires not only an intention to reside permanently but also actual presence that demonstrates such intention. The court cited previous rulings that clarified that "domicile" is characterized by a permanent intention to stay, and temporary visitors—those admitted for limited purposes such as business or pleasure—do not establish permanent residency.

In Ujano's case, although he was present in the Philippines at the time of his application, his status was that of a temporary visitor. The court emphasized that this categorization meant he could not meet the requisite condition of having resided in the country for six months prior to his application.

Conclu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.