Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > March 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6784 March 12, 1954 - NATIVIDAD MIRANDA v. DEPORTATION BOARD

094 Phil 531:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6784. March 12, 1954.]

NATIVIDAD MIRANDA, LUIS MIRANDA, PEDRO MIRANDA, RAMON MIRANDA and FAUSTINO MIRANDA, Petitioners, v. DEPORTATION BOARD, Respondent.

Jacobo Gonzales, for Petitioners.

Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Felix V. Makasiar for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. DEPORTATION; JURISDICTION; ALLEGATION OF CITIZENSHIP. — While the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board as an instrument of the Chief Executive to deport undesirable aliens exists only when the person arrested is an alien, the mere plea of citizenship, however, does not divest the Board of its jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners should make "a showing that his claim is not frivolous" (Ng Fung Ho v. White 259, U. S. 275), and must prove by sufficient evidence that they are Filipino citizens. [Kessler v. Strecker (1939) 307 U. S., 21, 35-36. If such is the primary duty of petitioners, it follows that the Deportation Board has the necessary power to pass upon the evidence that may he presented and determine in the first instance if petitioners are Filipino citizens or not. This is inherent in, or essential to the efficient exercise of, the power of the Deportation Board (Laurencio v. Collector of Customs 35 Phil., 37.) It is not therefore correct to state that the question of citizenship should be determined exclusión by the courts. (Llaneo v. Deportation Board, L-6272, February 22, 1954)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BLOOD TEST. — With regard to the contention that the Deportation Board has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the taking of a blood test upon the persons of petitioners to prove that they are not Filipino citizens, the same need not now be considered, it being a matter that said Board can look into in the exercise its incidental power to pass upon the citizenship of petitioners.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to restrain respondent from hearing the Deportation case filed against petitioners and, incidentally, to have an order issued requiring respondent to show cause why petitioners should not be released on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

On November 17, 1952, petitioners were charged before the Deportation Board with having entered the Philippines through fraud and misrepresentation in that, being the children of Chinese parents, they succeeded in showing through misrepresentation that they are the legitimate children of Faustino Miranda, a Filipino citizen, had with a woman named Puy Siok and that, by reason of such misrepresentation, they were landed in this country as children of a Filipino citizen. Because of these charges, petitioners were arrested and detained at the detention station of the Bureau of Immigration although later they were set at liberty upon posting a bond of P1,000 each.

On June 18, 1953, petitioners filed a motion to quash the case alleging that they are Filipino citizens and, therefore, the Deportation Board has no jurisdiction over them. The Deportation Board not only denied this motion but set the case for hearing on July 7, 1953, whereupon petitioner filed the present petition seeking the suspension of the hearing and their release.

The main contention of petitioners is predicated upon the theory that the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board is confined to persons who are admittedly aliens and are found to be undesirable and, having alleged that they are Filipino citizens, said Board has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the charges filed against them.

While the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board as an instrument of the Chief Executive to deport undesirable aliens exists only when the person arrested is an alien, however, the mere plea of citizenship does not divest the Board of its jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners should make "a showing that his claim is not frivolous" (Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S., 275), and must prove by sufficient evidence that they are Filipino citizens. [Kessler v. Strecker (1939) 307 U. S., 21, 35-36. ] If such is the primary duty of petitioners, it follows that the Deportation Board has the necessary power to pass upon the evidence that may be presented and determine in the first instance if petitioners are Filipino citizen or not. This is inherent in, or essential to the efficient exercise of, the power of the Deportation Board (Laurencio v. Collector of Customs, 35 Phil., 37.) It is not therefore correct to state that the question of citizenship should be determined exclusively by the courts. As this Court ruled in a recent case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Resuelto Por la Junta que tiene jurisdicción, es obvio que debe proseguir con el caso hasta su terminación. Si la Junta halla infundados los cargos de indeseabilidad del recurrente, el caso habra terminado totalmente, pero si la halla indeseable, puede apelar contra el fallo, y si la apelación fracasa, entonces sera el tiempo de considerar si demostrando causa razonable debe haber un juicio ulterior sobre la ciudadania filipina que alega mediante habeas corpus." (Llanco v. The Deportation Board, G. R. No. L-6272, prom. February 22, 1954.)

The foregoing disposes of the claim relative to the illegality of petitioners’ confinement. With regard to the contention that the Deportation Board has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the taking of a blood test upon the persons of petitioners to prove that they are not Filipino citizens, the same need not now be considered, it being a matter that said Board can look into in the exercise its incidental power to pass upon the citizenship of petitioners.

Wherefore petition is denied, with costs against petitioners. The writ of preliminary injunction issued against respondent is hereby dissolved.

Paras, C.J., Reyes, Pablo, Jugo, Bengzon, Labrador, Padilla, Concepcion and Montemayor, Diokno, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7207 March 4, 1954 - PABLO SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    094 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-5692 March 5, 1954 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., INC. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS

    094 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. L-6901 March 5, 1954 - PIO S. PALAMINE, ET AL. v. RODRIGO ZAGADO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-6874 March 6, 1954 - POTENCIANO SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL.

    094 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. L-7028 March 6, 1954 - JOAQUIN VILLALUZ v. TITO CANDIDO

    094 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-5156 March 11, 1954 - CARMEN FESTEJO v. ISAIAS FERNANDO

    094 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6158 March 11, 1954 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-6229 March 11, 1954 - LUCIO LOPEZ v. ELIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-5732 March 12, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO FADER

    094 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-6337 March 12, 1954 - RUPERTA CAMARA, ET AL. v. CELESTINO AGUILAR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. L-6784 March 12, 1954 - NATIVIDAD MIRANDA v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    094 Phil 531

  • Resolution : In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN ET AL., petitioners. March 18, 1954 IN RE: CUNANAN, ET AL. : 094 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5973 March 20, 1954 - MARCELO VEA v. CLAUDIO ACOBA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. L-7058 March 20, 1954 - VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    094 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4816 March 23, 1954 - SURIGAO EXPRESS CO., INC. v. ADOLFO C. MORTOLA

    094 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-6940 March 23, 1954 - MARIANO LICLICAN, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-5656 March 24, 1954 - JUAN G. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. MARIANO ALIPIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 25, 1954 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE, ET AL.

    094 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-5921 March 29, 1954 - SALVACION B. LONDRES v. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES

    094 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-6706 March 29, 1954 - ALFREDO JAVIER v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 6791 March 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUE PO LAY

    094 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-4958 March 30, 1954 - MONICO PUENTEVELLA, ET AL. v. FAR EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT, ET AL.

    094 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-4989 March 30, 1954 - MARCIANO INOCENTE, ET AL. v. MAMERTO S. RIBO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 652

    TABLE

  • G.R. No. L-5638 March 30, 1954 - LUZON LUMBER & HARDWARE CO. INC. v. MANUEL QUIAMBAO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-5758 March 30, 1954 - ISIDRO DE LEON v. HONORABLE DOMINGO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    094 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. L-6269 March 30, 1954 - ANTONIO CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-6298 March 30, 1954 - CONCEPCION MATURAN, ET AL. v. ARCADIO GULLES, ET AL.

    094 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-6308 March 30, 1954 - FEDERICO T. JUGADOR v. ZACARIAS DE VERA

    094 Phil 704

  • G.R. No. L-6382 March 30, 1954 - MANUEL LAPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-6518 March 30, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DIAZ

    094 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-6686 March 30, 1954 - BARTOLOME BARTOLOME v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    094 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-6835 March 30, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO YADAO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-7026 March 30, 1954 - MARGARITA ESTACIO VDA. DE POSADAS v. MARIA NIEVRE, ET AL.

    094 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-7115 March 30, 1954 - EUGENIO N. BRILLO v. MANUEL ENAGE, ET AL.

    094 Phil 732