G.R. No. L-24307. August 31, 1970
TAN KA HO AND TAN KA PIN, BOTH MINORS, AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER CHUA TEK HUN @ TSAI BEK YUEN @ CHUA PEK HUN, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPO…
CASTRO, J.:
Appeal from the order dated October 9, 1964 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch VIII-Pasig) in its
civil case 7495.
On October 12, 1960 Chua Tek Hun alias
Chua Fek Hun alias Tsai Bek
Yuen and her minor son, Tan Ka Ho, executed before the Philippine Consul in Hongkong, affidavits in support of their respective
applications for temporary visitor’s visas to the Philippines, which affidavits
read in part as follows:
“(1) That I am applying for temporary visitor’s
visa to the Philippines to visit my husband [father], Tan Hui
Long @ Tan Huy
Liong, a Chinese permanent resident merchant of the
Philippines and residing at No. 1888 M. del Pilar
Street, Manila;
“(2) That while in the Philippines,
I shall never apply for a change of status from temporary visitor; and
“(3) That I shall only stay in the Philippines
for ninety (90) days, unless otherwise extended by the proper
authorities.”
On October 15, 1960 the a forenamed mother and son and Tan Ka
Pin, another minor son (all hereinafter referred to as the petitioners),
arrived in Manila, aboard a PAL plane from Hongkong,
and were admitted (in immigration cases 21801-E to 21803-E) for a stay of three
months upon their posting a cash bond in the sum of P24, 000.
On October 21, 1960
the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in naturalization
case 42268 granting the petition for naturalization of Tan Huy
Liong.
Thereupon, the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, in their indorsements of December 2 and December 6, 1960,
respectively, allowed the petitioners a change of category from that of
temporary visitors to that of special non-immigrants under sec. 47(a)(2) of the
Immigration Act of 1940, and extended their stay in the Philippines until
October 21, 1962.
The Bureau of Immigration, however, subsequently refused to
receive the petitioners’ tendered extension fees for the period following August 25, 1962. Consequently, Tan Huy
Liong filed on August 23, 1962 with the Court of First Instance of Manila
a complaint for mandamus and
prohibition with mandatory injunction and preliminary injunction against the
Bureau of Immigration, docketed therein as civil case 51343. The said complaint was, however, dismissed by
the court on September 19, 1962,
which dismissal became final and executory in view of
the withdrawal by the petitioner therein of his appeal.
Thereafter, on February
21, 1963, the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch X) denied
Tan Huy Liong’s motion to
take his oath. He appealed this order of
denial to this Court which affirmed said order and denied his petition for
naturalization.[1]
On December 10, 1962 the Commissioner of Immigration (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent) confiscated the petitioners’ cash bond and
declared it forfeited in favor of the Philippine Government, and, on December
17, 1962, issued a warrant for their arrest to effect their deportation from
the Philippines. The petitioners, on December 26, 1962, filed with the
Court of First Instance of Rizal civil case 7495,
which is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the
respondent, to enjoin him and his agents from causing their arrest,
confinement, a deportation, as well as the confiscation of their cash
bond. The court a quo
issued on the same day a restraining order and scheduled the hearing on the
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. A motion to dismiss with opposition to
preliminary injunction was filed by the respondent on January 11, 1963.
But in an order dated June 8, 1963 the trial court denied the said motion and ordered the respondent
to file his answer.
The parties submitted a complete stipulation of facts on December 7, 1963. On October
9, 1964 the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition, with
costs against the petitioners. The
restraining order previously issued was ordered lifted and set aside.
Hence this appeal.
The lone issue tendered for resolution is, have the petitioners
acquired the right to remain in the Philippines
beyond the authorized period of their stay?
The petitioners premise their alleged right to prolong their stay
in the Philippines
on the pendency of the naturalization case of Tan Huy Liong, the husband and
father, and on the possibility that the latter may eventually be granted
Philippine citizenship. This is
apparent from the arguments which they advance with some degree of
vehemence. Thus, the petitioner Chua Tek Hun alias Chua Pek Hun
alias Tsai Bek Yuen argues that she has the
inchoate legal right to be admitted for permanent residence in the Philippines
under sec. 13(b) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, upon
the admission of her husband as a naturalized Filipino citizen, subject to her
compliance with the last paragraph of section 9 of the said Act. Upon the other hand, the petitioners Tan Ka
Ho and Tan Ka Pin, both minors then but now of age,[2]
assert that they have the inchoate legal right to be considered as Filipino
citizens upon the admission of their father as a naturalized Filipino citizen,
and therefore are entitled to stay so that they may enroll in a public or
private school recognized by the Government wherein Philippine history,
government, and civics are taught or prescribed, during the pendency
of the naturalization case of their father, to enable the latter to comply with
sec. 2, paragraph 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law. Indeed, even the Secretaries of Foreign
Affairs and Justice based their decision to extend the petitioners’ stay in the
Philippines
until October 21, 1962,
upon the fact that Tan Huy Liong’s
petition for naturalization had been granted.
Their respective indorsements extended the
period of stay to October 21, 1962 because “… the petition of their
husband/father, Tan Huy Liong,
for naturalization as Philippine citizen has been granted by the Court of
First Instance of Manila in its decision dated October 21, 1960, which has not been appealed,”[3]
and “The herein petitioners will become citizens by operation of law, if
otherwise qualified, when the decision of the court becomes executory
after two years from its promulgation, pursuant to Republic Act No. 530.”[4]
Tan Huy Liong’s
motion to be allowed to take his oath as a naturalized Filipino citizen,
however, was denied by the Court of First Instance of Manila on February 21, 1963, which order of
denial was affirmed by this Court on February
28, 1966 in Tan Huy Liong v. Republic, supra. This final denial of Tan Huy
Liong’s petition for naturalization has completely
removed the props of the petitioners’ argument that they have acquired the
right to remain in the Philippines
beyond the authorized period of their stay because of the pendency
of their husband/father Tan Huy Liong’s
naturalization case. And, since the
authorized extension of their stay in the Philippines expired on October 21, 1962, their continued
presence in this country has become illegal, rendering them liable to arrest,
with resultant confiscation of their bond, and subsequent deportation in
accordance with section 37(a)(7) of the Immigration Act of 1940, which reads:
“Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens
shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any
other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant
of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against
the alien:
“(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines
in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a non-immigrant.“
Verily,
respondent can now legally order the arrest and cause petitioners as well as the confiscation of cash bond in favor of the Philippine
Government.
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed order dated October 9, 1964 of the Court of First
instance of Rizal is affirmed, at petitioners’ cost.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
Tan Huy Liong v.
Republic, L-21671, Feb. 28, 1966.
[2]
Tan Ka Ho was born on May 5, 1942,
Tan Ka Pin on August 8, 1949.
[3]
1st Indorsement of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
dated December 2, 1960.
[4]
2nd Indorsement dated December 6, 1960 of the Secretary of Justice.