LIM CHIOK, CHEUNG BO CHOI ALIAS TIU SHU BEE, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. HON. MARTINIANO VIVO, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Manila (in Civil Case No. 50988) denying the
petition to stay the order of the Commissioner of Immigration for petitioners’
exclusion from the country.

Petitioners Cheung Bo Choi alias
Tiu Shu Bee, Lim Wan Thon, Lim Chin Doo and Lim Chin Eng, mother and her 3
minor children, entered the Philippines on October 8,
1960 as
temporary visitors for an initial authorized stay of 3 months. Upon their
request, petitioners’ stay have been extended by the
Commissioner of Immigration several times, the last of which was to expire July
21, 1962.

In the meantime, or on January
23, 1961,
the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the petition for
naturalization of petitioner’s husband. Thereafter, the immigrants petitioned
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs arid the Secretary of Justice for a change of
their status from temporary visitors to special non-immigrants, in view of
the fact that by January, 1963, their husband and father would become a
Filipino citizen by taking the corresponding oath of allegiance. This was
granted.

Later, however, this extension was declare a nullity by the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

On June 25,
1962,
petitioners requested the respondent Commissioner of Immigration that they be allowed to pay the extension fees up to January
23, 1963,
but the name was denied and they were ordered instead to leave the country in 7
days. Thereupon, a petition for prohibition was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila to stop such order by the Immigration Commissioner. After
due hearing, the trial court denied the petition.

Petitioners have taken this appeal
assigning the following as errors allegedly committed by the lower court, to
wit:

1. The court
a qua erred in holding that the Cabinet had acted without legal authority in
passing resolution of February 29, 1956;

2. The court a quo likewise erred
in holding that the secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of Justice
acted without legal authority in granting the request of change of category
from temporary visitors to special non-immigrants and extension of stay of
petitioners-appellants;

3. The court a qua further erred in
resolving that petitioners-appellants have violated their contract with the
Philippine Government in refusing to leave after the respondent-appellee has
ordered them to do so; and

4. The court a quo has finally
erred in refusing to consider that the approval of the petition for
naturalization of petitioners-appellants’ husband and father is one of the
considerations for their continued stay up to and including January
23, 1963.

The legal issue
raised in this appeal are not new; in fact, they have been already
resolved in previous similar cases. We have already said that the
administration and enforcement of our immigration laws lie with the Bureau of
Immigration. The so-called Cabinet Resolution of February
29, 1956 did
not specifically authorize the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and of Justice to
extend the stay of temporary visitors. It could not legally do so because under
the express provisions of the Immigration Law, it is the Commissioner of
Immigration who is vested with the power and authority to grant such
extensions. And, the Cabinet has no power to amend or modify the law. We so
declared in Ang Liong vs. Commissioner of Immigration (51 Off.
Gaz., 2893) when we said:

“The Secretary of Foreign
Affairs is not authorized to admit into the Philippines aliens for temporary stay, or
extend the period authorized by the Commissioner of Immigration for their stay
in the Philippines.”

Neither can the two Secretaries
authorize the change of status from temporary visitors to special
non-immigrants. The law and our decisions on the matter are clear on this
point: temporary visitors can not have their status changed to special
non-immigrants without first departing from the country (Sec. 9, Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended; Ong Se Lun vs. Board of
Commissioners G.R. No. L-6017, Sept. 16, 1954; Sy Ong vs. Commissioner of
Immigration, G.R. No. L-10224, May 11, 1957; Ng Hin to Commissioner of
Immigration, G.R. No. L-13026, March 30, 1960.) Having come to
this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised. At
any rate, the extension to January 23, 1963 granted by the two Secretaries and
invoked and relied upon by the petitioners in this case had already expired,
and since no other legal extension has been obtained, this appeal has become
moot. The act of the respondent to carry out his order complained of would be
justified.

As a consequence, 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.