Suy v. Commissioner of Immigration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellees, Kua Suy and her three minor sons, all Chinese nationals, entered the Philippines as temporary visitors on June 17, 1955, with an authorized stay of only three months. Their husband and father, Liu Giok In, was a permanent resident merchant in the Philippines. The Commissioner of Immigration sought to expel the appellees and confiscate their P34,000 cash bond due to their overstaying. Procedural History: On August 4, 1955, before their initial stay expired, the appellees requested an extension from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, which was granted subject to certain conditions, including maintaining valid reentry permits, enrolling the minor sons in school, and pursuing Liu Giok In's naturalization proceedings in good faith. The appellees complied with these conditions. However, on August 2, 1957, the Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs informed the Commissioner that further extension could not be authorized and suggested requiring the appellees to leave immediately. The Commissioner then issued a notice for the appellees to leave within three days or face forcible removal and forfeiture of their bond. This led to the appellees filing a petition for injunction, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Manila on March 28, 1958, after Liu Giok In's naturalization petition became final on August 17, 1957. The Commissioner appealed this decision. The Petition: The Commissioner of Immigration appealed the Court of First Instance's decision, arguing that the appellees, remaining aliens, were subject to expulsion after their authorized stay expired, despite Liu Giok In's naturalization. The Commissioner contended that the finality of the naturalization decision did not automatically confer citizenship on the wife and children, and that they had overstayed their visitor permits. The appellees argued that Liu Giok In's naturalization should extend to them. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the wife and children remained aliens and were subject to deportation as their lawful period of stay had expired, and that the Naturalization Act was not intended to excuse violations of immigration laws.
Issue(s)
Whether the finality of the naturalization of the husband automatically confers Philippine citizenship upon his alien wife and minor children who entered as temporary visitors. Whether the wife and minor children of a naturalized Filipino citizen, who entered as temporary visitors and whose authorized stay has expired, can be compelled to leave the Philippines. Whether the trial court erred in issuing a writ of injunction restraining the Commissioner of Immigration from deporting the petitioners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, revoked the writ of injunction, and ordered the costs against the appellees. The Commissioner of Immigration was upheld in his directive for the petitioners to leave the Philippines.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of automatic citizenship for the wife and minor children: The Court held that the finality of the naturalization decision for Liu Giok In did not automatically make him a Filipino citizen, as the law prescribes a two-year probationary period before he could take an oath of allegiance. Until then, he was not fully naturalized, and consequently, citizenship was not extended to his wife and children. Therefore, they remained aliens at the time the appealed decision was rendered. The Court reiterated the principle that marriage to a Filipino citizen does not automatically confer citizenship upon the wife unless she herself can be lawfully naturalized, citing Ly Giok Ha vs. Galang and Cua vs. Board of Immigration Commissioners. As for the minor children, while Section 15 of the Naturalization Act extends citizenship to a foreign-born minor child dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the parent's naturalization, the Court emphasized that 'dwelling' must be construed to mean 'lawful residence'. Since the children's lawful period of stay as temporary visitors had expired in 1957, and they had been required to leave, they were no longer lawfully residing in the Philippines at the time their father took his oath of allegiance in 1959. The Court stressed that the Naturalization Act was not intended to be an excuse for violations of immigration laws. On the right of the wife and minor children to remain in the Philippines: The Court found that the extension of stay granted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was definitively terminated on August 2, 1957. The Commissioner of Immigration was therefore free to proceed with the expulsion of the appellees. The subsequent opinion from the Secretary of Justice extending their stay was revoked due to non-disclosure of facts. The Court concluded that the appellees had exhausted the maximum period allotted to them as temporary visitors and had no legal right to remain in the country. On the issuance of the writ of injunction: The Court criticized the tendency of certain aliens to overstay their temporary permits and rely on injunctions from lower courts to prolong their illegal stay. It emphasized the need for extreme caution in issuing such injunctions, stating that aliens who voluntarily enter under temporary permits must be strictly required to abide by the periods fixed therein. Laxity in this matter encourages entry under false pretenses. The appellees' remedy was to leave the country as promised and then secure permission to reenter permanently.
Main Doctrine
Aliens admitted as temporary visitors must strictly abide by the periods fixed in their permits; failure to do so, even if followed by the naturalization of a family member, does not automatically confer citizenship or the right to remain in the Philippines without proper legal basis, and does not preclude deportation proceedings.