Chausintek vs. Republic

The one-year residence requirement for naturalization refers to legal residence or domicile, which continues once established and is not lost by temporary absence provided there is no intention to abandon the original residence. Issues regarding the contents of foreign law must be raised and proved in the lower court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Johnny Chausintek, a Chinese national, married Martina Tiongson Rustia, a Filipina, in 1934, and they resided in Baliuag, Bulacan. He filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, which the Republic opposed. The Naturalization Law governs the requirements for acquiring Philippine citizenship, including a one-year residence requirement in the province where the petition is filed.

Johnny Chausintek, a Chinese national, married Martina Tiongson Rustia, a Filipina, in 1934, and from then on they lived in Baliuag, Bulacan. He had been residing in the Philippines for 37 years. He completed the Fifth Grade at the National School in Manila, then the Intermediate at the Meisec School, and studied at the Normal High School and Commerce at Jose Rizal College. He was co-owner and manager of the Paramount Drugstore with a capital of P66,000, P31,000 of which belonged to him, earning an annual income of about P10,000.

The trial court found that Chausintek possessed and spoke Tagalog, and spoke and wrote English. He was familiar with Philippine history and its institutions, having acquired affection for the Republic. His six children, all born in the Philippines, studied in government-authorized private schools where Philippine history and its system of government were taught. He was associated with the residents of Baliuag and identified with their customs, traditions, and ideals, and during the occupation gave material and moral support to resistance groups against the enemy.

Regarding his residence, Chausintek, corroborated by the testimonies of two witnesses, proved that despite his stay in Manila in the last three years due to his business, he never intended to reside permanently in Manila nor to abandon his domicile in Baliuag, Bulacan. A certified copy of the Chinese law was presented, which recognizes reciprocity to Filipino citizens to acquire Chinese citizenship by naturalization.

The Solicitor General appealed, assigning two errors: (1) that the one-year residence immediately preceding the filing of the petition is not legal but actual residence, and therefore the lower court had no jurisdiction; and (2) that Chausintek was not in a position to effectively renounce his Chinese nationality as required by Article 11, Chapter III of the Chinese Law of Nationality, which requires permission from the Ministry of the Interior.

• Residence Requirement: The Republic argued that the one-year residence immediately preceding the filing of the petition must be actual, not legal, residence, and therefore the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition.
• Effective Renunciation: The Republic argued that Chausintek was not in a position to effectively renounce his Chinese nationality because Article 11, Chapter III of the Chinese Law of Nationality requires the permission of the Ministry of the Interior for a citizen to renounce Chinese nationality.

• Jurisdiction / Residence: Whether the one-year residence requirement for naturalization refers to legal or actual residence, and whether the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had jurisdiction over the petition.
• Renunciation of Foreign Nationality: Whether the appellee must prove his ability to effectively renounce his Chinese nationality, and whether this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Jurisdiction / Residence: No error. The residence requirement refers to legal residence (domicile), which continues despite temporary absence. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan had jurisdiction to hear and grant the petition.
• Renunciation of Foreign Nationality: No. The issue was not raised in the lower court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; the contents of foreign law are facts that must be alleged in time and proved if material.

• Jurisdiction / Residence: Citing Zuellig vs. Republic of the Philippines, the Court held that once domicile or residence is established, it continues, and before acquiring a new residence, one must abandon the established residence and reside in the new one with the intention of residing there permanently and without any intention of returning to the old residence. Chausintek's stay in Manila was temporary, for business purposes, and he never intended to abandon his domicile in Baliuag. Therefore, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had jurisdiction.
• Renunciation of Foreign Nationality: The evidence and contents of a foreign law is a fact that must be alleged in time and proved if material, and no evidence thereof may be presented and admitted on appeal. Section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court applies to naturalization proceedings by analogy and in a suppletory character, as they are not inconsistent with the Naturalization Law. The Republic's contention that no formal answer is required in naturalization proceedings is without merit, because the taking of an oath of allegiance is only a requirement before the naturalization certificate is issued, and nothing in the Naturalization Law requires the appellee to allege in his application and prove during the hearing that he had previously obtained permission from the Ministry of the Interior of the Chinese Republic to renounce his former nationality.

• Doctrine of Continuing Residence (Domicile) — Once domicile or residence is established, it continues; to acquire a new residence, one must abandon the established residence and reside in the new one with the intention of residing there permanently and without any intention of returning to the old residence. Applied here: Chausintek's temporary stay in Manila for business did not divest his residence in Baliuag, Bulacan, and the CFI of Bulacan therefore had jurisdiction.
• Foreign Law as Fact — The evidence and contents of a foreign law is a fact that must be alleged in time and proved if material; no evidence thereof may be presented and admitted on appeal. Applied here: the Republic's claim regarding the Chinese Law of Nationality could not be raised for the first time on appeal because it was not raised in the lower court.

• "once domicile, or residence is established, the same continues, and that, before a residence may acquire a new residence, he must abandon his established residence and reside in his new one with the intention of residing therein permanently and without any intention of returning to his old residence." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine of continuing residence, quoted from Zuellig, and is the ratio decidendi for the first issue on jurisdiction.
• "The evidence and contents of a foreign law is a fact that must be alleged in time and proved if material; and no evidence thereof may be presented and admitted in this Court on appeal." — This states the rule that foreign law is a fact to be proved in the trial court, the basis for rejecting the second assignment of error.

• Frederick Edward Gilbert Zuellig vs. Republic of the Philippines, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. (11), 220 — Controlling precedent; the Court quoted and followed its holding on the continuing character of residence or domicile in a naturalization proceeding.

• Section 1, Rule 58, Rules of Court — Applied by analogy and in a suppletory character to naturalization proceedings, supporting the rule that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Article 11, Chapter III, Chinese Law of Nationality — The foreign law invoked by the Republic; the Court held its contents were not properly raised or proved in the lower court.
• Naturalization Law — The statute governing the requirements for naturalization, including the one-year residence requirement; the Court held it does not require the applicant to allege and prove prior permission from the Chinese Ministry of the Interior to renounce his former nationality.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Jugo, JJ.