G.R. No. L-21136. December 27, 1963
TONG SIOK SY (NEE CHAN), PETITIONER, VS. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BARRERA, J.:
a Filipino citizen, at Taichung, Taiwan on November
12, 1960.
She was then a citizen of Nationalist China. As a consequence of said marriage,
she took her oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Filipino Vice-Consul
at Taipeh, on February 6, 1961. On her entry into the country on May
2, 1961,
Tong Siok Sy was documented as a Filipino citizen. An investigation of her case
was conducted by the Bureau of Immigration Board of Special Inquiry, which
reached a favorable decision, this wise: Commissioner Talabis voted in favor
on July 28, 1961; Commissioner De La Rosa voted in favor on August
23, 1961;
and Commissioner Galang voted against her admission on August
23, 1961.
On July 14,
1962, the
present Board of Commissioners, after reviewing motu propio her case,
declared that she, did not possess all the qualifications to become a citizen
of the Philippines, especially the residence
requirement, and ordered her exclusion as an alien not properly documented.
She filed an action in the Court of
First Instance of Manila claiming that she was unduly deprived of her Filipino
citizenship without due process of law. Appropriate answer was filed by the
Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration. After the issues have been
joined, the case was submitted for judgment on the pleadings. Thereafter, the
court dismissed the petition, for the reason that the present Board of
Commissioners, acting within the 1-year period within which its decision may be
reconsidered, had the right to reverse its former ruling in favor of
petitioner. Furthermore, it was held that an
alien wife follows only the citizenship of her Filipino husband if she has all
the qualifications for naturalization and none of the disqualifications. In
this case, she lacked the residence requirement of 10 years by the
Naturalization Law.
Petitioner is now bringing the
matter here on appeal.
Section 15 of the Revised
Naturalization Law reads:
“Sec. 15. Effect of the naturalization on
wife and children.—Any woman who is now or hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized &hall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”
Evidently, petitioner, who came to
the Philippines only in 1961, does not possess all
the necessary qualifications to become a naturalized citizen herself. Her
marriage to a Filipino citizen did not ipso facto make her a citizen of the Philippines. (Lo Tuan vs.
Commissioner of Immigration, L-18775, prom. November 30, 1962; Kua Suy vs. Commissioner of
Immigration L-13790, prom. October 31, 1963).
The issue on the power of the Board
of Immigration to reverse its previous ruling is also answered in the
affirmative. It appearing that the last Commissioner who voted on the matter
made it on August 23, 1961, the review of the case on July
14, 1962
was well within the 1-year period prescribed by law.
Wherefore, judgment 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 Macalintal, JJ., concur.