COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH I, SY KIB @ SY GIP, CO CHIN LUN AND BABY CO, RESPONDE…

Sy Kib, alias
Sy Gip, and her two minor
children, Co Chin Lun and Baby Co, previously visited
this country as temporary visitors on May 5, 1955 up to April 6, 1956 and on
February 7, 1959 up to March 6, 1960. 
Upon previous application, they were again admitted here on July 30,
1960 under Section 9(g) of the Immigration Act, as amended, Sy
Kib, as a pre-arranged employee for Ang Pao & Company where she
had allegedly invested $10,000 and was to work as cashier and treasurer, and
two minor children, as here dependents. 
Their authorized stay was three years, counted from the date of their
arrival.^[1]
This period expired on July 29, 1963. 
The request for extension of their stay, filed by Ang
Pao, Manager of the Company, dated June 4, 1963, was
granted on October 12, 1964 by the Commissioner of Immigration provided that
they leave the country on or before November 30, 1964.

Several months after the period last mentioned had expired,
however, Sy Kib and her
children still remained in the country. 
On March 12, 1965, Acting Commissioner of Immigration Martiniano Vivo ordered her to depart from the country with
her children.  Said Commissioner denied
subsequent requests by the First Secretary and concurrent­ly Consul General of
the Chinese Embassy for a year’s extension of their stay, on the ground that Sy Kib has had enough time to
liquidate her business here.

Sy Kib and
her aforementioned children then peti­tioned on August 7, 1965 the Court of
First instance of Manila,^[2]
to enjoin the Commissioner of Immigration from arresting them, cancelling their bonds and deporting them and to allow
their stay until Co Te, Sy Kib’s
husband and father of her children, becomes naturalized and until Sy Kib, now allegedly an
indispensable business partner in the Ang Pao Company, liquidates her interests in said company.  Their arrest and deportation was temporarily
en­joined by said court, pending hearing on the plea for pre­liminary injunction.

Respondent Acting Commissioner of Immigration opposed the
petition and moved for its dismissal, alleging his discretion on extensions of
aliens’ stay in the country and that his authority to arrest them was not
subject to injunction.  Further alleged were
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the fact that Sy
Kib’s husband, who had merely filed a declaration of
intention to file a petition for naturalization, can very well tend to her
alleged business interests.  Despite said
opposition the Court of First Instance presided by Judge Francisco Arca denied the dismissal of the petition and enjoined, by
preliminary injunction, until further notice, the respondent from arresting and
deporting Sy Kib and her
two children.

The Commissioner of Immigration is now4 before Us asking that We enjoin the
lower court from enforcing its own injunction, questioning its jurisdiction
over the case and re-asserting his discretion and power over the extension of
the period of an aliens’ stay here.

Before Us for consideration is the propriety of the lower court’s
taking cognizance of the case and its is­suance of the injunction.

The administration of immigration laws is the primary
responsibility of the executive branch of the government.  Extensions of stay of aliens are
discretionary on the part of immigration authorities,5 and neither a petition for mandamus
nor one for certiorari can compel the Commissioner of Immigration to extend the
stay of an alien whose period to stay has expired.6 Should the actuations of the Commissioner
be unsatisfactory, the parties concerned should address themselves to the
President of the Philippines who by law has the final authority on such
questions of deportation.7 Applicable jurisprudence therefore,
plainly shows the lower court to have erred in entertaining the case and in
enjoining further actions which the Commissioner was duty bound to carry out.

Sy Kib’s
husband’s application for naturalization or the fact of Sy
Kib’s having had three other Manila-born minor
children, does not change her situation nor that of her children who came with
her.  In several instances, af­ter the
husband had been granted his petition for natura­lization but before his oath
as a citizen, We held that the alien wife as well as their children whose
period of stay has expired, must leave the country.8 Their remedy is to secure
permission to re-enter permanently after having left the country.

Contrary to Sy Kib’s
claim that they entered the country as non-quota immigrants, the record shows
them to have been accepted as non-immigrants,9 and as such they cannot remain here
permanently without first departing and then requesting for permanent
re-entry.  Furthermore, the order of
their admission expressly stated that their stay shall not exceed three years
from their date of ar­rival.  Knowing the
limited duration of her stay, Sy Kib,
as well as her company, risked its non-extension and con­sequent loss of money
by supposedly engaging extensively in the business in which Sy
Kib allegedly played an indis­pensable role.  Also, We find tenable the Commissioner’s
argument that her business interests can be taken cared of by her husband.  At any rate, the extension of her stay for at
least a year was made as early as March 21, 1965.  The pendency of the
present case has more than provided her wish. 
There is no question now that she and her two children must leave the
country.

WHEREFORE, the respondent court is enjoined from car­rying
out its injunction, which is hereby dissolved, and the Commissioner of
Immigration is ordered to proceed in accordance with law.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex A, Order of Admission, p. 11 of Record.

^[2] Petition
for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, Civil Case No. 62578.

3 Annexes I & J, pp. 31 & 32 of the Record.

4
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction.

5
George Bisschop v. Galang, L-18365, May 31,
1963.

6
See Guan v. Commissioner of Immigration L-21811, Nov. 1965 Kwok Kam Lien v. Vivo, L-22354, March 31, 1965.

7
Gaw Lam v. Conchu,
L-20267, Oct. 31, 1964.

8
Ngo Chiao Lin v. Commissioner of Immigration,
L-21523, Feb. 28, 1966; Kuah Suy
v. Commissioner of Im­migration, L-13790, Oct. 31, 1963.

9
Order of Admission as pre-arranged employee, June 26, 1959, Annex A, p. 11 of
the Record.