G.R. No. L-6017. September 16, 1954

Please log in to request a case brief.

95 Phil. 785

[ G.R. No. L-6017. September 16, 1954 ]



REYES, J.B.L., J.:

This is an appeal by the Board of Immigration Commissioners and the
Commissioner of Immigration, represented by the Solicitor-General, from
a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering them to
desist from carrying out the orders for the arrest and deportation of
the appellees herein, Go Uan and her minor children, Ong Ana and Ong
Bun Juan.

It appears that appellees Go Uan and her children, Ong Ana and Ong
Bun Jua, are Chinese nationals who, on their last arrival in the
Philippines on May 8, 1948, were admitted here as “temporary visitors”;
that to guarantee their departure from this country upon the expiration
of their temporary stay, Ong Se Lun (husband of Go Uan and father of
Ong Ana and Ong Bun Jua) put up in their behalf a cash bond of P4,500
(Exhibit 10); that upon their request, said immigrants Go Uan, Ong Ana,
and Ong Bun Jua, were granted by the Immigration authorities several
extensions of their temporary visit in this country, the last of which
expired on February 9, 1950; that despite the expiration of the last
period granted them, they continued to remain in these islands,
wherefore warrants for their arrest were issued by the Immigration
Office on the charge that their stay in this country as temporary
visitors had already expired (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3); and that
thereafter, the Bureau of Immigration, acting through a Board of
Special Inquiry, conducted an investigation in 1950 regarding the
charges against said aliens Go Uan, Ong Ana, and Ong Bun Jua.

During the hearing and investigation the appellees Go Uan, Ong Ana,
and Ong Bun Jua claimed that although they were allowed to reenter this
country as temporary visitors, they had, immediately after their
arrival, applied for a change of status; that their case was submitted
to a Board of Special Inquiry designated by the Commissioner of
Immigration and that after investigation, the Board in its decision of
October 26, 1948, admitted them as “returning residents” (Exhibit A),
finding that they had first entered the Philippines in 1936 as the wife
and children of Ong Se Lun, a resident merchant of Iloilo City; that
sometime in March, 1941, Ong Se Lun and his family, the appellees
herein, departed for China for a vacation, being provided with the
corresponding reentry permits; that Ong Se Lun returned soon afterward
but appellees Go Uan, Ong Ana and Ong Bun Jua stayed behind in China
for a longer stay, but were prevented from returning by the outbreak of
the last war; that after cessation of hostilities, being unable to
secure permission to reenter due to loss of their reentry permits and
inability to establish their former residence, appellees entered the
Philippines as temporary visitors.

After the 1950 hearing, the Board of Special Inquiry unanimously
found the respondent aliens to have remained in the Philippines in
violation of the limitation or condition under which they were admitted
as temporary visitors, and ordered their deportation (Exhibit 5); and
accordingly, warrants of deportation were issued against them (Exhibits
6, 7, and 8). Pending availability of transportation to China, the
respondent aliens were required to increase their cash bond to P4,000
as well to put up an additional surety bond of P6,000 for each one, so
that their warrant of deportation would be held in abeyance; and
because of their failure to comply with these requirements, their
arrest for the purpose of placing them under the custody of the
Commissioner of Immigration was ordered. To prevent their arrest and
deportation, appellee Go Uan and her husband, Ong Se Lun, petitioned
the Court of First Instance of Manila for a writ of prohibition
ordering the Board of Immigration Commissioners and the Acting
Commissioner of Immigration to desist from carrying out the orders for
the deportation of the immigrants Go Uan, Ong Ana, and Ong Bun Jua.

After trial, the Court of First Instance found the decision of the
Board of Special Inquiry of October 26, 1948 (admitting said aliens as
returning aliens) to have become final and conclusive, so held that the
subsequent proceedings for their deportation were null and void; and
ordered the respondent Immigration Commissioners to desist from
carrying out the orders of deportation. From this judgment, the Board
of Immigration Commissioners and the Commissioner of Immigration have
appealed to this Court.

The question for this Court to determine is whether or not under the
facts of the case, the Commissioner of Immigration has the power and
authority to deport the aliens Go Uan, Ong Ana, and Ong Bun Jua.

No controversy exists on the fact that these aliens were admitted to
this country as “temporary visitors”. And the law is to the effect that
temporary visitors who do not depart upon the expiration of the period
of the stay granted them are subject to deportation by the Commissioner
of Immigration for having violated the limitation or condition under
which they were admitted as non-immigrants (Immigration Law, Sec.
37(a), subsection (7); C. A. 613, as amended). The period for the
temporary visit of these aliens, Go Uan, Ong Ana, and Ong Bun Jua
having already expired, they are, under the law, liable to deportation
by the Commissioner of Immigration.

The finding of the 1948 Board of Special Inquiry, purporting to
declare the status of appellees as aliens entitled to reside
permanently in these islands (Exhibit A), is not binding on the
appellant Immigration Commissioners, for three reasons:

(1) Under the law then in force, the Boards of Inquiry only “have
authority to determine whether an alien seeking to enter or land in the
Philippines shall be allowed to enter or land or shall be excluded” (C.
A. 613, sec. 77(b), and nowhere in the law are these Boards
conferred power to determine whether an alien who has already landed or
entered as “temporary visitor” should be admitted for permanent

(2) Because the decision of the Board (Exhibit A), like that of any other administrative body, does not constitute res judicata
so as to bar reexamination of the alien’s right to enter or stay
(Pearson vs. William, 202 U. S. 1029; 50 L. Ed. 281; Flynn ex rel Haw
Loy Wong vs. Ward, 95 F. (2d) 742; Loy vs. Cahill, 81 F. (2d) 809).

(3) Because the Immigration regulations specified that—

“An alien who is admitted as a non-immigrant can not
remain in the Philippines permanently; nor will he be allowed to remain
after he relinquishes his non-immigrant status…

“To obtain
permanent admission, a non-immigrant alien must depart voluntarily to
some foreign country (any one in which he can secure admission), and
procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa and thereafter
undergo examination by officers of this Bureau at a Philippine port of
entry, for determination of his admissibility in accordance with the
requirements of the Immigration Law.” (Bulletin No. 1 of the Bureau of
Immigration, concerning the Immigration Law, C. A. 613, November 22,

The requirement that the alien should first abandon the Islands
before seeking permanent admission therein is justified by the
consideration that in accepting the status of a temporary visitor the
alien in effect accepts that he is not entitled to permanent admission;
and to allow him to change his status without first departing (as he
obligated himself to do) would be encouraging the entry of aliens on
false pretenses. Considerations of convenience or efficiency must yield
to the definite and express policy of the Republic in its dealings with
aliens; and it is well to note that the procedure outlined in
Immigration Bulletin No. 1 was sanctioned and reiterated in practically
the same terms by Republic Act No. 503, section 3. An alien’s presence
and stay in this country being a matter of privilege, he must be held
to a strict observance of the laws concerning his admission.

It is finally contended that the appellee aliens were not given the
benefit of notification and hearing in the deportation proceedings
against them. This claim is belied by the records. Exhibit 4 is a
transcript of the proceedings, and it appears therein that the
appellees were not only present at the hearing, but they had the
benefit of counsel and adduced evidence in their behalf.

For the above reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and
the writ of prohibition applied for by the petitioners Ong Se Lun and
Go Uan is denied. Costs against petitioners-appellees Ong Se Lun and Go

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Date created: July 26, 2017


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters