Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > March 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13026 March 30, 1960 - NG HIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

107 Phil 537:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13026. March 30, 1960.]

NG HIN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Acting Asst. Solicitor General F. Villamor for Appellant.

Gianzon & Uy for Appellee.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Froilan Bayona, presiding, declaring that an order of the Commissioner of Immigration, annulling that of the First Deputy Commissioner changing the status of the petitioner from "temporary visitor" to "permanent resident," is null and void, and restraining the Commissioner of Immigration from carrying out the warrant of deportation dated March 26, 1951, etc. The petition was decided upon a stipulation of facts which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That appellee Ng Hin, a Chinese, was a permanent resident in this country prior to 1940;

"2. That sometime in 1940, appellee left the country for China, and while there, he secured a returning resident visa which was issued by the American Consulate in Amoy, China in November 22, 1941. Said visa however was not used;

"3. That on March 4, 1948, upon his application, he was issued a returning resident visa but again, he did not make use of the same and instead, applied for a temporary visitor visa;

"4. That on November 26, 1948, provided with such temporary visitor’s visa, appellee arrived at the port of Manila and was allowed to land as a temporary visitor’s;

"5. That upon his request, appellee was granted by the appellant several extensions for his temporary stay in this country, the last of which expired on March 25, 1950;

"6. That upon his failure to leave the country on said date, ‘Warrant of Arrest No. 1182’ was issued against the appellee for violation of his stay in this country and deportation proceedings was instituted against him (Annex A of the Answer to the Amended Petition, p. 19, rec.);

"7. That after due hearing, the Board of Commissioners promulgated its decision on June 14, 1950, ordering the deportation of the appellee to the country of origin (Annex B of the Answer to the Amended Petition, p. 20, rec.);

"8. That pursuant thereto, a ‘Warrant of Deportation’ was issued on March 26, 1951, by the appellant herein (Annex C of the Answer to the Amended Petition, p. 21, rec.) ,

"9. That three years thereafter, i.e., on June 29, 1954, appellee filed with the appellant a petition for correction of his status from temporary visitor to that of returning resident (par. 2 of the Amended Petition, p. 95, rec.);

"10. That on July 19, 1954, First Deputy Commissioner of Immigration Francisco de la Rosa, issued an order allowing the correction to be made, and cancelling and/or refunding the bonds filed for the appellee’s temporary admission, (Annex D of the Answer to the Amended Petition, p. 22, rec.);

"11. That on August 6, 1955; the herein appellant, in his communication to the appellee (Annex E, of the Answer to the Amended Petition, p. 23, rec.) , set aside the said order of the First Deputy Commissioner of Immigration dated July 19, 1954, correcting the status of appellee from temporary visitor to returning resident and, proceeded to enforce the Warrant of Deportation previously issued against the appellee, at the same time, requiring the latter to file a new cash bond of P3,000 and surety bond in the amount of P7,000 within 72 hours from receipt to guarantee his temporary release; and

"12. That on August 11, 1955, the appellee instituted the instant proceedings for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the above stipulation of facts the court below held that it is not necessary for an alien who is a "permanent resident," but who had left the Philippines and is later admitted as "temporary visitor" in order to join his family and arrange his affairs, to first leave the Philippines and thereafter seek for his reentry as permanent resident, citing the case of Chiong Tiao Bing and Chiong Tiao Siong v. The Commissioner of Immigration, 99 Phil., 1020; 52 Off. Gaz. [15] 6551.

The Commissioner of Immigration has appealed to us from the said decision, arguing that the decision of the court below has overlooked certain important facts disclosed by the documentary evidence, namely, that after the admission of petitioner-appellee on November 26, 1948, as a temporary visitor, he had made several requests for the extension of the period of his stay, which were granted up to March 25, 1950; that upon petitioner’s failure to leave the country on the said date a warrant for his arrest was issued and proceedings for deportation instituted against him; that after due hearing, the Board of Commissioners promulgated its decision on June 14, 1950 ordering appellee’s deportation; and that pursuant thereto a warrant of deportation was issued on March 26, 1951. So, it is argued, that petition for correction of petitioner’s status was requested only after over three years, since the warrant of deportation was issued. We find this contention of the respondent-appellant well founded. The above facts are contained in the stipulation of facts but appear to have been actually ignored by the trial court and omitted in his findings of facts.

It is next contended on behalf of the respondent-appellant that an alien who has been admitted as a temporary visitor cannot change his status without first departing from the country as expressly provided by Section 9, last paragraph, of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended by Republic Act No. 503. The provision cited is as follows:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 9. . . .

"An alien who is admitted as a nonimmigrant cannot remain in the Philippines permanently. To obtain permanent admission, a nonimmigrant alien must depart voluntarily to some foreign country and procure from the appropriate Philippine consul the proper visa and thereafter undergo examination by the officers of the Bureau of Immigration at a Philippine port of entry for determination of his admissibility in accordance with the requirements of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above provision has been applied by us in the case of Chiong Tiao Bing, Et. Al. v. Commissioner of Immigration, supra; Ong Se Lun, Et. Al. v. Board of Immigration Commissioners, Et Al., 95 Phil, 785; Sy Hong, Et. Al. v. Commissioner of Immigration, G. R. No. L-10224, May 11, 1957.

The case cited by the court below is an exception to the application of the rule contained in the last paragraph of Section 9 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, which exception was justified by the circumstances of the case. In that case we said:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"But the circumstances of petitioners’ entry negates any misrepresentation or estoppel. The state does not deny that they originally had the right to return as permanent residents; that they had been exercising efforts to have that right recognized since the termination of the Pacific war, and that their acceptance of the temporary visitor’s visa was due to their effort to escape from the Communist forces that shortly afterwards took over their place of residence in China. The Philippine Government was not therefore misled as to the real claims of petitioners, that they were returning residents; and hence, taking into account that petitioners were themselves minors when they returned, we believed the Ong Se Lun ruling does not apply to their case. In effect, the issuance of a temporary visa in their favor appears as an assent on the part of the Philippine authorities to their entry pending final decision on their right to return. The decision in their favor was made in the order of Deputy Commissioner de la Rosa on June 25, 1954 (Exh. A), which could not be validly revoked without notice to and due hearing of petitioners herein. (Chiong Tiao Bing, Et. Al. v. Commissioner of Immigration, supra.)

In the case at bar the petitioner-appellee was admitted to the Philippines since 1948, but he did not seek a correction of his status until June 29, 1954 and only after his deportation had been ordered on June 14, 1950 and a warrant for his deportation issued on March 26, 1951. Had there been any special cause or reason why the general rule should not apply to him, the petitioner-appellee should have taken steps to make the correction as soon as his entry as a temporary visitor was allowed in 1948. Note that while in the case of Chiong Tiao Bing and Chiong Tiao Siong v. The Commissioner of Immigration, supra, in which an exception to the general rule was made, this Court found that petitioner therein had to accept temporary visitor’s visa to escape from communist forces and that the Government was not misled as to the real claims of petitioners that they were returning residents. No such circumstances have been proved or expressed in the stipulation of facts. There is, therefore, no reason for making an exception to the general rule clearly stated in the above-quoted provision of the law.

For the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the injunction issued by the court below preventing deportation of petitioner is hereby set aside, with costs against the petitioner-appellee. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 March 9, 1960 - PANFILO ROYO v. CELSO T. OLIVA

    107 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14436 March 21, 1960 - HORACIO GUANZON v. FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 341 March 23, 1960 - DELIA MURILLO v. NICOLAS SUPERABLE JR.

    107 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-12776 March 23, 1960 - MARTIN AGLIPAY, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR., ETC.

    107 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-13403 March 23, 1960 - RAMON E. SAURA v. ESTELA P. SINDICO

    107 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-14304 March 23, 1960 - ANTONIANTONIA A. CABARROGUIS, ET AL. v. TELESFORO B. VICENTE

    107 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-8587 March 24, 1960 - BENITO E. LIM, ETC. v. HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., ETC., AND KAGAWA

    107 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-11747 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELISA TE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-11954 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR ACOSTA and CONSOLACION BRAVO

    107 Phil 360

  • G.R. Nos. L-13270-71 March 24, 1960 - JESUS T. PINEDA v. MOISES G. CARANDANG

    107 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-13476 March 24, 1960 - REMEDIOS L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-14058 March 24, 1960 - William Gue v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-14303 March 24, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-11059 March 25, 1960 - ADRIAN FONG v. EMILIO M. JAVIER

    107 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-12603 March 25, 1960 - MUNICIPALITY OF HINABAÑGAN AND RUFINA NABUAL v. MUN. OF WRIGHT AND JULIAN ABEGONIA

    107 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-12870 March 25, 1960 - MARTIR ET AL. v. AMADO P. JALANDONI and PAZ RAMOS

    107 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13663 March 25, 1960 - ESPERIDION ADORABLE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

    107 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-14439 March 25, 1960 - NARIC WORKER’S UNION, ET AL. v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-10313 March 28, 1960 - ISIDORA S. VDA. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-12253 March 28, 1960 - OLIMPIO GUTIERREZ v. MIGUEL SANTOS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-13387 March 28, 1960 - SY CHIUCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    107 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-13683 March 28, 1960 - PAZ SAMANILLA v. CENEN A. CAJUCOM, ET AL.

    107 Phil 432

  • G.R. Nos. L-13688-91 March 28, 1960 - CATALINO GUITARTE v. LUCIA SABACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-11310 March 29, 1960 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. RECORDING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-13465 March 29, 1960 - SELPH v. GLICERIA M. VDA. DE AGUILAR

    107 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13832 March 29, 1960 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. FROILAN BAYONA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14710 March 29, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ENCARNACION AGUSTINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-7969 March 30, 1960 - JAI-ALAI CORP. OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS CHING KIAT BIEK, ET AL.

    107 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. L-9740 March 30, 1960 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO MUTUAL BLDG. LOAN ASS. ET AL. v. BUILDING EMPLOYEES INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-9940 March 30, 1960 - AVELINO REVILLA and ELENA FAJARDO v. GODOFREDO GALINDEZ

    107 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10393 March 30, 1960 - BAY VIEW HOTEL EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10471 March 30, 1960 - INOCENCIA INGARAN, ET AL. v. FEDERICO RAMELO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-1053 March 30, 1960 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA, ETC., v. ESTEFANIA VDA. DE ALDABA and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10705 March 30, 1960 - LUIS ATIENZA BIJIS v. FRANCISCO LEGASPI, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-10915 March 30, 1960 - SOLEDAD BACALZO, ET AL. v. MARTINA PACADA

    107 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-12541 March 30, 1960 - ROSARIO U. YULO v. YANG CHIAO SENG

    107 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. L-12795 March 30, 1960 - ACSAY MANDIH v. GREGORIO TABLANTIN

    107 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-12956 March 30, 1960 - ENRIQUE S. CASTRO v. ESPERANZA B. MONTES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-13026 March 30, 1960 - NG HIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    107 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. L-13072 March 30, 1960 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-13246 March 30, 1960 - FEDERICO CALERO v. EMILIA CARION Y SANTA MARINA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. L-13505 March 30, 1960 - BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. FIDEL HENARES

    107 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-13791 March 30, 1960 - ALFRED EDWARD FAWCETT v. EULOGIO BALAO

    107 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-13852 March 30, 1960 - PEDRO AVENTURA and ANACLETA GALAN v. HON. PANTALEON A. PELAYO, ETC. AT AL.

    107 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-14541 March 30, 1960 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO VELAYO

    107 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-14718 March 30, 1960 - VICENTE JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CARMELO S. CAMARA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. L-14794 March 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BATUNDO MINURAY and BALICUAT GUBAT

    107 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-16132 March 30, 1960 - RICARDO CANCERAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    107 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-16731 March 30, 1960 - FELIPE ECO v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 612