G.R. No. L-27030. March 06, 1968
PABLO GONZAGA, ANGEL GONZAGA, AMADOR GONZAGA AND ANDRES GONZAGA, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,…
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Pablo, Angel, Amador and Andres, surnamed Gonzaga,
arrived on December 12, 1961
from abroad at the Port of Manila,
on board a Cathay Pacific Airways plane.
They sought admission to the Philippines,
alleging that they were Filipino citizens and the children of one Roman Gonzaga. The Board
of Special Inquiry, on December 18,
1961, admitted them as Filipino citizens.
On March 8, 1962,
the Board of Commissioners, on review of the decision of the Board of Special
Inquiry, held that the aforesaid persons had not satisfactorily established
their claim to Filipino citizenship and, therefore, resolved to exclude them
from the country. A warrant of arrest
and exclusion was thereupon issued against them by the Commissioner of
Immigration.
Pablo Gonzaga and his three companions
filed, on July 8, 1965, a
petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branch, for prohibition with
preliminary injunction, to restrain the Commissioner of Immigration from
arresting and deporting them. Said court,
on October 23, 1965,
after hearing, issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
Respondent filed his answer.
The parties then submitted the case for decision upon a stipulation of
facts and documentary evidence.
On July 30, 1966,
the Court of First Instance found that petitioners had sufficiently established
their Filipino citizenship. It
therefore granted the prohibition writ applied for and made the preliminary
injunction permanent. Appeal was taken to Us from said decision, by the
respondent.
The present action is in reality a review of the decision of the
Board of Commissioners, promulgated on March 8, 1962, even if designated as
prohibition (Roman Santos v. Secretary Moreno, G.R. No. L-15829, December 4, 1967). As such, the court’s function is only to ascertain
whether the findings of the board are in accord with law, free from fraud or
imposition, and whether they find any reasonable support in the evidence. (Ibid.)
In the proceedings before the Board of Commissioners, petitioner
sought to prove that they are Filipino citizens by showing, first, that Roman Gonzaga is a Filipino citizen; and second, that they are
the children of Roman Gonzaga. In support of the
first proposition, they presented (1) a baptismal certificate stating that
Roman Gonzaga was baptized on August 19, 1908, at
the age of 21 days thus indicating that he was born on July 30, 1908,
and further stating that he is the son of Juliana Gonzaga,
a Filipino, of an unknown father; (2) a birth certificate showing that
Roman Gonzaga was torn on August 9, 1908 to
Juliana Gonzaga, and an unknown father; and
(3) a landing certificate of residence, issued to Roman Gonzaga,
which shows that he was born on July 15, 1908 and was permitted to land
as a native born Filipino citizen, the son of Juliana Gonzaga.
Stating that the dates of birth indicated therein being
different, doubt arises as to whether they refer to one person or three
different persons, the Board of Commissioners found that the point was not
adequately established.
As to the second proposition, it said: “Applicants claim to be the children of
Roman Gonzaga out of this aforesaid marriage in 1931
with Tan. Ho. Again this, claim
suffers from lack of competent evidence to establish the paternity and filiation of the claimant children. Other than the self-serving testimonies of
applicants and their alleged father, nothing was submitted to prove that
applicants are the children of Roman Gonzaga, a
Philippine citizen.”
In contrast, the Court of First Instance ruled, on the first
point, that the discrepancies as to the date of birth of Roman Gonzaga are immaterial, what controlled is that in said
documents he is stated to be the son of Juliana Gonzaga,
a Filipino, and an unknown father, which proves him to be a Filipino
citizen. And as to the second point, the
Court said: Filipino is undisputed that the petitioners are really children of
a Filipino citizen x x x.” Apparently, the court had in mind the
stipulation of facts which stated, in par. 1, that: “On December 12, 1961,
petitioners herein arrived at the port of Manila on board Cathay Pacific
Airways plane and sought admission into the Philippines as Filipino citizens, being
the children of Roman Gonzaga.”*
In so doing, the court exceeded its powers as a reviewer of the
findings of an administrative body; for it resolved a factual issue on the
basis of something not presented before said administrative body and reversed
the latter’s findings. Furthermore,
petitioners, alleged Filipino citizenship could not properly be stipulated
upon, after petitioners were ordered to be excluded from the country by the
Board of Commissioners on the ground of failure to establish their alleged
Philippine citizenship, the allegation of which was the reason why they were
admitted here in the first place. Since,
unquestionably, petitioners failed to prove and establish, by sufficient and
competent evidence, Philippine citizenship, the court a quo erred
in granting the petition in question and restraining the Commissioner of
Immigration from arresting and deporting them.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed
and set aside, the petition for prohibition is dismissed, and the preliminary
injunction issued by the lower court which was made permanent, is hereby
dissolved, with costs against appellees.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Acting Chief Justice, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., on leave.
*
Underscoring supplied.