Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > November 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21811 November 29, 1965 - SEE GUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21811. November 29, 1965.]

SEE GUAN, for himself and in behalf of his wife LU LAI FU and minor daughters SEE SIOK CHENG and SEE SIU HUA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, as head of the BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellee.

Solicitor General for respondents-appellee.

Solicitor General for respondents-appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; NON-IMMIGRANTS; POWER OF COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION TO EXTEND PERIOD OF VISITOR’S STAY IN THE COUNTRY. — The Commissioner of Immigration has no ministerial duty to grant a petition for extension of the period of an alien’s stay in the Philippines. Hence, mandamus will not lie to compel him to do so. Neither does a writ of certiorari for, in the absence of an order by a competent authority, which under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 is no other than the Commissioner of Immigration, extending the period of a temporary visitor’s stay in the Philippines, it becomes the bounden duty of said Commissioner to proceed against the temporary visitor and his bond upon the expiration of his right to stay in the country.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Alleging that he had secured a judgment granting his petition to be naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines, that steps preparatory to the taking of the oath of allegiance required therefor had already been taken, that he is the husband of Lu Lai Fu and the father of her daughters See Siok Cheng and See Siu Hua — hereinafter referred to as visitors — and that the Commissioner of Immigration — hereinafter referred to as the respondent — is threatening to deport said visitors from the Philippines and to proceed against their cash bonds, See Guan, purporting to act on their and his own behalf, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition praying that a writ of certiorari and mandamus be issued setting aside respondent’s communication of September 11, 1962, containing said threat, and compelling him to allow said visitors to remain in the Philippines until the taking of the aforementioned oath of allegiance and the issuance of the certificate of naturalization in his (See Guan’s) favor.

In his answer, respondent denied the alleged relation between See Guan and said visitors, and averred, among other defenses, that the latter had been admitted as temporary visitors and that their right to stay as such in the Philippines had expired already. Pending determination of the merits of the case, the lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Upon submission of the case for decision, said court subsequently rendered judgment dismissing the petition and dissolving said writ, costs against the petitioners. Hence this appeal by the latter.

It is not disputed that said visitors came to the Philippines on May 21, 1960, and, after posting cash bonds, were admitted therein as temporary visitors, for a specified period of time, which, upon their request, had been extended from time to time. On September 3, 1962, they sought another extension of time, which was denied in a letter of the Bureau of Immigration dated September 11, 1962. The letter, moreover, required them to leave the Philippines on or before September 18, 1962, and stated that, otherwise, said office would be "constrained to proceed against their persons and the cash bonds posted on their behalf." Inasmuch as respondent has no ministerial duty to grant said petition for extension of time, it is clear that a mandamus does not lie to compel him to do so. Neither does a writ of certiorari for, in the absence of an order by a competent authority, which under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 is no other than the respondent, extending the period of their stay in this country, their right thereto had expired on September 18, 1962, and, consequently, it became his bounden duty thereafter to proceed against their persons and against their aforementioned bonds.

Obviously, the decision rendered on May 23, 1960, granting See Guan’s petition for naturalization did not have the effect of imposing upon respondent the duty to extend the period of time within which said visitors may stay in the Philippines. Again, when this case was instituted on September 14, 1962, See Guan and said visitors were not Filipinos, but aliens. What is more, they still are aliens, for, after appropriate proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Manila denied See Guan’s motion to be allowed to take the requisite oath of allegiance and secure the corresponding certificate of naturalization. In the language of the order to this effect, dated July 5, 1963:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the facts thus unfolded, it is patent and undeniable that petitioner does not know how to speak and write English. Indeed, he had to admit it, as already adverted to above. Neither is his ability to write Tagalog sufficient within the contemplation of the Naturalization Law, because Exh. 5, is not only hard to read but also practically unintelligible.

"In other words, petitioner lacks the fifth qualification provided in Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, known as the Revised Naturalization law, possession of which may be inquired into even at this stage of the proceedings, pursuant to the ruling in the case of Ong Ching Guan v. Republic of the Philippines, wherein the Supreme Court said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

`During the hearing on the petition to take the oath, any question affecting the qualifications of the applicant may be invoked (Lim Hok Albano v. Republic, L-10912, October 31, 1958). (On Ching Guan v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-15691, March 27, 1961).’"

Then too, an alien admitted as non-immigrant cannot, pursuant to Section 9 of the aforementioned Act, change his status without first departing from the Philippines and complying with the other requirements of said section (Ong Se Lun, Et. Al. v. Board of Immigration, Et Al., L-6017, September 16, 1954; Chiong Tio Bing, Et. Al. v. Commissioner of Immigration, L-9966, September 28, 1956; Sy Hong, Et. Al. v. Commissioner, L-10224, May 11, 1957; Ng Min v. The Commissioner, L-13026, March 30, 1960; Kua Suy, Et. Al. v. Commissioner, L-13790, October 31, 1963).

Last, but not least, See Guan has not even tried to prove his alleged relation with the aforementioned visitors, notwithstanding the fact that the allegation to this effect had been specifically denied by respondent herein. Hence, the petition herein and this appeal have no leg to stand on.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners-appellants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




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






November-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22697 November 2, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONION TAN Y CUI @ DIONING

  • G.R. No. L-17159 November 23, 1965 - AFAG VETERAN CORPS, INC. v. MARIANO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-20199 November 23, 1965 - COSMOPOLITAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ANGEL B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20715 November 27, 1965 - HENRY TIONG, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20910 November 27, 1965 - YAO LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21138 November 27, 1965 - IN RE: ROBERTO TING TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20915 November 27, 1965 - IN RE: TEOFILO LU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15939 November 29, 1965 - ANGELES UBALDE PUIG, ET AL. v. ESTELA MAGBANUA PEÑAFLORIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16905 November 29, 1965 - ROSARIO OLIVEROS, ET., AL. v. JOSE QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-17027 November 29, 1965 - YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17059 November 29, 1965 - PEDRO MANIQUE, ET AL. v. CEFERINO F. CAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17160 November 29, 1965 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. PRIMATERIA SOCIETE ANONYME POUR

    LE COMMERCE EXTERIEUR: PRIMATERIA (PHIL.) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17294 November 29, 1965 - CU BIE, ET., AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-17312 November 29, 1965 - ARTURO R. TANCO, JR. v. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17406 November 29, 1965 - FINLEY J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17640 November 29, 1965 - VIRGINIA I. VDA. DE LIMJOCO v. DIRECTOR OF COMMERCE

  • G.R. No. L-17884 November 29, 1965 - ADOLFO GASPAR v. LEOPOLDO DORADO

  • G.R. No. L-18669 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: TY BIO GIAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18673 November 29, 1965 - ALEX LO KIONG v. UNITED STATES LINES CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19120 November 29, 1965 - LA MALLORCA v. ARMANDO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-19193 November 29, 1965 - FERNANDO O. PALAROAN v. AURORA A. ANAYA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19585 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON C. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965 - PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ v. VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20160 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: GREGORIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20281 November 29, 1965 - DOMINGO MALOGA v. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20342 November 29, 1965 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20643 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. MARCIANO BAYLON, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20764 November 29, 1965 - SANTOS JUAT v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-20799 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: JOSE T. UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20805 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO DESIDERIO

  • G.R. No. L-20819 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: GAN TSITUNG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20845 November 29, 1965 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. LADISLAO MANALANG

  • G.R. No. L-20850 November 29, 1965 - EDWARD J. NELL COMPANY v. PACIFIC FARMS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20912 November 29, 1965 - LI TONG PEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20980 November 29, 1965 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21017 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: SENECIO DY ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21192 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: JESUS YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21217 November 29, 1965 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21255 November 29, 1965 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JAIME R. NUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-21316 November 29, 1965 - CEFERINA V. DAVID v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21447 November 29, 1965 - JOSE REYES, ET., AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-21453 November 29, 1965 - AURORA VILLAMIN SY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21811 November 29, 1965 - SEE GUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22040 November 29, 1965 - YU CHI HAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22712 November 29, 1965 - CANDIDO UY alias RICARDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22778 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO B. BUSLON

  • G.R. No. L-24962 November 29, 1965 - VICE MAYOR ANTONIO C. JARO v. ROSARIO P. ISIDERIO, ET., AL.