Ang It v. Commissioner of Immigration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Ang It, was a permanent resident of the Philippines prior to 1946. In that year, she traveled to China for a temporary visit, intending to return. However, she was unable to return until November 17, 1947, at which point she was admitted into the Philippines as a temporary visitor. Her authorized stay as a temporary visitor expired, leading to a warrant of arrest issued on May 19, 1951, and subsequently, a deportation order on March 27, 1952, for violating the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Procedural History: Following the deportation order, the petitioner requested a correction of her immigration status from temporary visitor to returning resident. On September 2, 1954, an order was issued by the Acting Commissioner of Immigration to correct the records, reflecting her readmission on November 17, 1947, as a returning resident and to issue a corresponding certificate of residence. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Immigration issued a letter on August 9, 1955, directing the exaction of cash and surety bonds and collection of service fees, and also proceeded with the warrant of deportation. The petitioner then filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop these actions and a declaration that the August 9, 1955 order was void. The trial court denied the petition and set aside the preliminary injunction, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant appeals the decision of the lower court, arguing that the Commissioner of Immigration cannot enforce the deportation order given the prior correction of her status to that of a retiring resident. She contends that the trial court erred in applying the ruling in Ong Se Lun vs. Board of Immigration Commissioner and in holding that she must depart the country and reapply for permanent residency from abroad. The petitioner seeks to have the order of August 9, 1955, declared null and void and the injunction made permanent, asserting that the correction of her status by a former Deputy Commissioner should be respected and that the government is estopped from revoking it.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Immigration is legally authorized to carry out a deportation order against an alien who entered as a temporary visitor, notwithstanding a prior administrative order 'correcting' her status to that of a permanent resident. Whether the principles of res judicata or estoppel apply to prevent the government from enforcing a deportation order after an immigration official has purportedly corrected an alien's status.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the deportation order and denying the petition for permanent admission. The Court ruled that the correction of the petitioner's status by immigration officials was illegal and against public policy, and that she must comply with the statutory requirements for permanent admission, including physical departure from the Philippines.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the physical departure requirement under Section 9 of the Philippine Immigration Act is mandatory and cannot be bypassed. Applying the doctrine in Ong Se Lun v. Board of Immigration Commissioners, the Court held that if an alien gains admission on the strength of a voluntary representation that she will enter only for a limited time, she cannot later go back on that representation to stay permanently without first departing. The law does not confer power upon the Boards of Inquiry or the Commissioner to determine if a landed temporary visitor should be admitted for permanent residence post-entry. Allowing such 'corrections' would encourage aliens to enter under false pretenses and evade return to their port of origin. Any administrative action that attempts to 'correct' or 'change' status in this manner is illegal and against public policy because no officer is above the law. Therefore, the order by the former Deputy Commissioner was void, and the petitioner remained subject to deportation for overstaying. On Issue 2: The Court held that decisions of immigration officials do not constitute res judicata and thus do not bar the re-examination of an alien's right to stay. Furthermore, the government is not in estoppel to correct or overrule a wrong construction of the law by administrative officials. Referring to Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue, the Court emphasized that no vested rights can be acquired based on an illegal administrative interpretation. The Court also distinguished this case from Chiong Tiao Bing v. Commissioner of Immigration, noting that in that case, the minors had claimed permanent residency before entry and were fleeing communist invasion, whereas the petitioner here voluntarily accepted a temporary visa after losing her right to re-entry as a permanent resident. Consequently, the government was within its rights to ignore the illegal status correction and proceed with the warrant of deportation based on the petitioner's original admission as a temporary visitor.
Main Doctrine
An alien admitted as a temporary visitor who subsequently seeks permanent residence without first departing the Philippines and procuring the proper visa from a Philippine Consulate abroad cannot acquire vested rights based on an illegal correction of status by immigration officials, nor can the government be estopped from correcting such erroneous interpretation of law.