Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Uytengsu v. Republic

    Uploaded by

    alyssa bianca orbiso
    57 views6 pages
    Petitioner, who was born in the Philippines to Chinese parents, applied for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. This law required residence in the Philippines from the filing of the application until the hearing. However, Petitioner left the Philippines immediately after filing and did not return until months after the initial hearing date. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding Petitioner did not comply with the residence requirement as he was not physically residing in the Philippines during the intervening period as required by the law. The Court interpreted the statute based on the plain meaning and in a way to avoid rendering any parts of it redundant or without purpose.

    Original Description:

    uytengsu v. republic summary and rules of statutory construction used

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner, who was born in the Philippines to Chinese parents, applied for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. This law required residence in the Philippines from the filing of the application until the hearing. However, Petitioner left the Philippines immediately after filing and did not return until months after the initial hearing date. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding Petitioner did not comply with the residence requirement as he was not physically residing in the Philippines during the intervening period as required by the law. The Court interpreted the statute based on the plain meaning and in a way to avoid rendering any parts of it redundant or without purpose.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    57 views6 pages

    Uytengsu v. Republic

    Uploaded by

    alyssa bianca orbiso
    Petitioner, who was born in the Philippines to Chinese parents, applied for naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473. This law required residence in the Philippines from the filing of the application until the hearing. However, Petitioner left the Philippines immediately after filing and did not return until months after the initial hearing date. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding Petitioner did not comply with the residence requirement as he was not physically residing in the Philippines during the intervening period as required by the law. The Court interpreted the statute based on the plain meaning and in a way to avoid rendering any parts of it redundant or without purpose.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    UYTENGSU V.

    REPUBLIC
    FACTS:
    Petitioner-appellee was born, of Chinese parents, in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental on
    October 6, 1927, where he also finished his primary and secondary education. He went
    to the United States, where, from 1947 to 1950, he was enrolled in the Leland Stanford
    Junior University, in California. In April of the same year he returned to the Philippines
    for four (4) months vacation. Then, to be exact, on July 15, 1950, his present
    application for naturalization was filed. Forthwith, he returned to the United States and
    took a postgraduate course, in chemical engineering, in another educational institution.
    He finished this course in July 1951; but did not return to the Philippines until October
    13, 1951.

    Petitioner contends, and the lower court held, that the word “residence”, as used in the
    aforesaid provision of the Naturalization Law, is synonymous with domicile, which,
    once acquired, is not lost by physical absence, until another domicile is obtained, and
    that, from 1946 to 1951, he continued to be domiciled in, and hence a resident of the
    Philippines, his purpose in staying in the United States, at that time, being, merely to
    study therein.
    LAW
    SEC. 7 COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 473

    CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; ABSENCE DURING PERIOD


    INTERVENING BETWEEN FILING OF APPLICATION AND
    HEARING AN OBSTACLE TO PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION
    QUESTION ON THE LAW
    Whether or not the application for naturalization may be granted,
    notwithstanding the fact that petitioner left the Philippines immediately
    after the filing of his petition and did not return until several months after
    the first date set for the hearing thereof.
    HOW DID SUPREME COURT RULED
    NO. Petition denied.

    While, generally speaking, domicile and residence mean one and the same thing,
    residence combined with intention to remain, constitutes domicile while an established
    abode, fixed permanently for a time for business or other purposes, constitutes a
    residence, though there may be an intent, existing all the while, to return to the true
    domicile.

    Where the petitioner left the Philippines immediately after the filing of his petition for
    naturalization and did not return until several months after the first date set for the
    hearing thereof, notwithstanding his explicit promise, under oath, that he would reside
    continuously in the Philippines “from the date of the filing of his petition up to the time
    of his admission to Philippine citizenship”, he has not complied with the requirements
    of section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, and, consequently, not entitled to a
    judgment in his favor.
    RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
    STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE
    It should have one purpose and one intent; Construe its parts and section in
    connection with other parts

    Optima Statuti Interpretatio est ipsum statutum - the best interpreter of a


    statute is the statute itself.

    CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID SURPLUSAGE

    such requirement refers to actual or physical residence because to construe it


    otherwise is to render the clause a surplusage.
    An applicant for naturalization must be actually residing in the Philippines from
    the filing of the petition for naturalization to its determination by the court

    You might also like