Residency is one of the requirements for an alien to become a naturalized Filipino. To become a citizen, the law requires an applicant to have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10 years.

However, the 10 years of continuous residence is reduced to only 5 years for any applicant who:

1. Honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;
2. Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;
3. Married a Filipino woman;
4. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years;
5. Was born in the Philippines.

These conditions are found in Section 3 of the Naturalization Act.[1]

One question we get asked is:

When does this reduced 5 year period begin? Is it from the time the residency began or is it from the time the condition reducing the period was fulfilled?

The Supreme Court has addressed this issue.

In Corbet vs. Republic,[2] a Russian citizen applied for naturalization in 1948. He then married a Filipino woman after filing the application.

The Supreme Court did not require Corbet to have been married to a Filipino for at least 5 years before filing his application for naturalization. It required only that he had already resided in the Philippines for at least 5 years. It ruled that:

“The fact that he married a Filipino woman after filing his original application does not deprive him of the benefit granted by section 3, paragraph 3, of the Naturalization Act. There is no showing that the marriage was contracted in bad faith or just to secure the benefit granted by law.”

This means that the benefit granted by Section 3 need not be counted from the time that the condition was fulfilled, but from the time residency began. This logically applies to each of the alternative conditions in Section 3 of the Naturalization Act.

Indeed, Corbet provides that the 5 year benefit also begins from the point of residency when someone has honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines.  Corbet had served under the Philippine Army during World War II, which the Court found to itself be a reason to entitle him to the benefit granted by the law.

The other conditions under Section 3 should be read in the same way. The period before which an innovative foreign industrialist or inventor may apply for citizenship begins from the point he began residing in the country, not from the point that he created the new industry or introduced a new invention.

Likewise, a foreigner who has been teaching in the Philippines for only 2 years, but who has already been residing here for 5 years need not wait any longer to apply for naturalization.

[1] Commonwealth Act No. 473.

[2] G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953.

Another question we get asked is how to interpret the residency requirement in view of the phrase “continuous period”.

Does it mean that the foreigner applying for citizenship must not have left the Philippines at all for 5 or 10 years?

It does not. The Supreme Court has ruled that the phrase “continuous residence” does not mean without interruption. Actual physical presence is not required every day of the 5 or 10 year period.

Not every absence is fatal to continuous residence. There may be a temporary absence which may not be considered as breaking the continuity of the applicant’s residence, where there is “animus revertendi” [the intention to return]. It is unreasonable to interpret the phrase “continuous residence” strictly and literally. Congress could not have intended absurd interpretation of the provisions of the Naturalization Law.[1]

Absence of short duration from the Philippines does not interrupt or affect the continuous residence required by law. Leaving the Philippines for short visits to the alien’s home country does not disqualify him from fulfilling the residency period.[2]

Even a period of 6 months has been accepted as an absence of short duration.

For this reason, the petition of a Chinese citizen, who spent many years in the Philippines but had returned to China for 6 months before applying for Filipino citizenship, was granted. The Supreme Court ruled that:

We do not believe that a short absence from the Philippines, such as the visit made by the petitioner to China for a period of six months in 1925, should be held to interrupt his residence begun in 1920.[3]

Thus, a 6 month interruption in the physical residency is not fatal to an application for citizenship, particularly if there was intent to return to the Philippines.

However, there is precedent for denying citizenship for considerably longer absences.

An absence of six years from the Philippines is not of a short duration. Citizenship was denied in such a case, considering that in that period the applicant had married in India and raised his children there. There was no evidence that he left properties or was engaged personally in business in the Philippines when he left for India. He had only been employed in his uncle’s company in the Philippines when he left. His purpose of leaving the country was not known and there was no evidence he had the positive intention to return.

Under those circumstances, his 6 year absence from the country had broken the continuity of his residence. Consequently, the petition for citizenship was denied because he did not have the 10-years continuous residence required by law.[4]

Atty. Francesco Britanico

[1] In Re: Petition for Admission to be a Citizen of the Philippines. Anandram Valiram Dargani vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-11525, December 24, 1959.

[2] Leon Miranda Tio Liok v. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-4545, October 29, 1952, cited in In Re: Ramon Ting v. Republic, G.R. No. L-9225 August 21, 1957.

[3] Ibid.

[4] In Re: Petition for Admission to be a Citizen of the Philippines. Anandram Valiram Dargani vs. Republic of the Philippines, supra.