SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20513          December 26, 1963

LIM CHIOK, CHEUNG BO CHOI alias TIU SHU BEE, ET AL., petitioners- appellants, vs. HON. MARTINIANO VIVO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellee.

Teodoro C. Ronquillo for petitioners-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellee.

BARRERA, J.:

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 time, the last of which was to expire July 21, 1962.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 and 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 declared a nullity by the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 same 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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

1. The Court a quo erred in holding that the Cabinet had acted without legal authority in passing resolution of February 29, 1956;chanrobles virtual law library

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;chanrobles virtual law library

3. The Court a quo 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; andchanrobles virtual law library

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 issues 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 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."chanrobles virtual law library

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 v. Board of Commissioners, G.R. No. L-6017, Sept. 16, 1954; Sy Ong v. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-10224, March 11, 1957; Ng Hin v. 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 had become moot. The act of the respondent to carry out his order complained of would be justified.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As a consequence, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.