SUN PECK YONG, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, denying the petition of Sun Peck Yeng
and her two minor children, to restrain the Commissioner of Immigration from
ordering their departure from the Philippines.

Petitioner Sun Peck Yong, the wife
of Cheng Ching who is a permanent resident of the City of Manila, arrived with her minor, son,
petitioner Cheng Sing Hong alias Sing in the Philippines on September 17, 1960 as temporary visitors. The other minor, son, petitioner
Cheng Suy Lu alias Cheng Suy Lo arrived and was admitted in the Philippines as
a temporary visitor on December 1, 1960. On February 1, 1961, petitioner Cheng Ching the other
petitioner’s husband and father, was admitted to Philippine citizenship by
virtue of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

On March 8, 1961, the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, on application of herein petitioners recommended to the
Secretary of Justice the change in category of their (petitioners) stay from
that of temporary visitors to special non-immigrants, in view of the fact that
by February 1, 1963, when the husband and father said immigrants shall have
taken oath as Filipino citizens, the latter would automatically become also
citizens of the Philippines. The extension of their stay to February
1, 1963
(not a change of status) was approved by the Secretary of Justice, subject to
the condition that they shall secure routinary re-entry permits in Hongkong
valid for a period beyond their extended stay, and their cash bonds shall be
maintained. Such requirements were duly complied with.

On January
15, 1962,
however, the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs declared as null and void the
Cabinet Resolution of February 29, 1956, laying the policy of extending
the period of stay of immigrants such as the petitioners by the mere action of
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of Justice. As their
previous authorized stay prior to the extension granted by the two Secretaries
which was declared invalid, would expire. June 17, 1962, the petitioners were required by
the Commissioner of Immigration, oh June 15, 1962, to leave the country in 7 days. Hence, the filing of the petition for prohibition to restrain said
immigration official from carrying out his order. Decision was
thereafter rendered upholding the power of the Commissioner of Immigration to
order their exclusion from the country, for the reason that the extension of
petitioner’s stay until February 1, 1963 was without “authoritative
basis.” (sic) From this decision, the present
appeal has been taken.

The decision should be affirmed. In the case of Lo San Tuan vs. Commissioner of Immigration (G. R.
No. L-18775 prom. November
30,1963) Kua Buy vs. Commissioner of Immigration, L-13790, prom.
October 31, 1963), we held that the fact that the husband became a naturalized
citizen does not automatically make the wife a citizen of the Philippines. It must also be shown that she
herself possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to
become a citizen; In this case, there is no allegation, much less showing, that
petitioner-wife is qualified to become a Filipino citizen herself. Furthermore,
the fact that a decision was favorably made on the naturalization petition of
her husband is no assurance that he (the husband) would become a citizen, as,
to make a basis for the extension of her temporary stay.

With respect to the action of the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs nullifying the cabinet resolution of February
29, 1956,
suffice it to say that the extended permission to stay, having already expired
on February 1, 1963, we find no reason anymore to pass upon the same.

The decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.