October 1964 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > October 1964 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-19977 October 30, 1964 - LAO CHA v. EMILIO L. GALANG:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-19977. October 30, 1964.]
LAO CHAY and NG SIU LUAN alias NANG SIU LUAN, Petitioners-Appellees, v. HON. EMILIO L. GALANG, in his capacity as Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent-Appellant.
Diño, Divina & Discaya for Petitioners-Appellees.
Solicitor General for Respondent-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZEN; NATURALIZATION; WIFE OF NATURALIZED ALIEN DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW CITIZENSHIP OF HUSBAND. — An alien woman who is married to a citizen of the Philippines acquires the citizenship of her husband only if she has the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in the Revised Naturalization Law (Com. Act No. 473, as amended.)
D E C I S I O N
REGALA, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the Commissioner of Immigration against a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Honorable Cloribel, presiding.
The question raised in this appeal is whether the wife of a Chinese who obtained papers of Philippine citizenship, automatically follows the citizenship of her husband if not otherwise disqualified under the Naturalization Law.
The essential facts are as follows: It appears that Ng Siu Luan and her three children, who are all of minor age, came to the Philippines on January 19, 1960 as temporary visitors, having been allowed to stay in this country until January 26, 1961. Instead of departing on that date, however, appellees asked the Bureau of Immigration for the cancellation of their alien certificates of registration as well as that of their children on the basis of Lao Chay’s admission to Philippine citizenship on December 12, 1960.
On January 20, 1961, appellant Commissioner of Immigration granted the petition as far as Lao Chay and the three children were concerned, but denied the same with respect to Ng Siu Luan on the ground that she is not qualified to acquire Philippine citizenship of her husband under the provision of paragraph 1, Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as she lacks the requirements provided for under paragraph 2 of the same Act." He therefore asked her to leave the country on January 26, 1961. The Immigration Commissioner denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration, although he gave Ng Luan a five-day extension within which to arrange for her departure.
To stop the threatened deportation of Ng Siu Luan, appellees filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila and secured from it a writ of preliminary injunction.
After trial, the court granted the petition and held that the law does not require that an alien wife should have the same qualifications as those required of applicants for naturalization, it being enough that she is not otherwise disqualified.
From this decision, the Commissioner of Immigration appeals.
Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended) provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. — Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is now settled that under this provision, an alien woman, who is married to a citizen of the Philippines acquires the citizenship of her husband only if she has all the qualifications prescribed in Section 2 and none of the disqualifications provided in Section 4 of the law. 1 Since Ng Siu Luan admittedly does not possess the qualifications for naturalization, her marriage to Lao Chay cannot be deemed as automatically vesting in her Filipino citizenship.
Anent appellees’ claim that a difference in the citizenship of husband and wife is subversive of family solidarity, this Court has already said that the duty of consorts to live together is irrelevant to the issue which concerns only the right of a sovereign state to determine what aliens can remain within its territory and under what conditions they can stay therein. 2
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved, without pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
The question raised in this appeal is whether the wife of a Chinese who obtained papers of Philippine citizenship, automatically follows the citizenship of her husband if not otherwise disqualified under the Naturalization Law.
The essential facts are as follows: It appears that Ng Siu Luan and her three children, who are all of minor age, came to the Philippines on January 19, 1960 as temporary visitors, having been allowed to stay in this country until January 26, 1961. Instead of departing on that date, however, appellees asked the Bureau of Immigration for the cancellation of their alien certificates of registration as well as that of their children on the basis of Lao Chay’s admission to Philippine citizenship on December 12, 1960.
On January 20, 1961, appellant Commissioner of Immigration granted the petition as far as Lao Chay and the three children were concerned, but denied the same with respect to Ng Siu Luan on the ground that she is not qualified to acquire Philippine citizenship of her husband under the provision of paragraph 1, Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as she lacks the requirements provided for under paragraph 2 of the same Act." He therefore asked her to leave the country on January 26, 1961. The Immigration Commissioner denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration, although he gave Ng Luan a five-day extension within which to arrange for her departure.
To stop the threatened deportation of Ng Siu Luan, appellees filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila and secured from it a writ of preliminary injunction.
After trial, the court granted the petition and held that the law does not require that an alien wife should have the same qualifications as those required of applicants for naturalization, it being enough that she is not otherwise disqualified.
From this decision, the Commissioner of Immigration appeals.
Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended) provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. — Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is now settled that under this provision, an alien woman, who is married to a citizen of the Philippines acquires the citizenship of her husband only if she has all the qualifications prescribed in Section 2 and none of the disqualifications provided in Section 4 of the law. 1 Since Ng Siu Luan admittedly does not possess the qualifications for naturalization, her marriage to Lao Chay cannot be deemed as automatically vesting in her Filipino citizenship.
Anent appellees’ claim that a difference in the citizenship of husband and wife is subversive of family solidarity, this Court has already said that the duty of consorts to live together is irrelevant to the issue which concerns only the right of a sovereign state to determine what aliens can remain within its territory and under what conditions they can stay therein. 2
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved, without pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Lo San Tuan v. Galang, G.R. No. L-18775, Nov. 30, 1963. See also Sun Peck Young, Et. Al. v. The Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-20784, Dec. 27, 1963; Tong Siok Sy v. Vivo, G.R. No. L-21136, Dec. 27, 1963.
2. Lu Choy Fa, Et. Al. v. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-20597, November 29, 1963.
