C.

People

Case # 1

Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27

Facts:

1. May 12, 1952, Special Prosecutor Emilo Galang charged petitioners before the DeportationBoard, having
purchased US dollars in the sum of $130,000.00, without the necessary licensefrom the Central Bank of the
Philippines, which was then secretly remitted to Hong Kong-

2. Petitioners Qua Chee Gan and Chua Lim Pao alias Jose Chua and Basilio King attempted to bribeofficers of the
PHL and US governments (Antonio Laforteza, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Central Bank, Capt. A.P.
Charak of the OSI, US Air Force) to evade prosecution for theunauthorized purchase.-

3. A warrant of arrest of petitioners was issued by the Deportation Board. They filed a surety
bondof P10,000.00 and cash bond for P10,000.00, thereby provisionally setting them at liberty-

4. Petitioners-appellants filed a joint motion to dismiss in the Deportation Board for the
reasonthat the same does not constitute legal ground for deportation of aliens, and that the Board
hasno jurisdiction to entertain such charges. Motion was denied by the Board on Feb. 9, 1953-

5. Petitioners then filed a petition for habeas corpus and/or prohibition to the Court, but
madereturnable to the Court of First Instance of Manila. After securing and filing a bond for P5,000.00each, a writ
of preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court, restraining the DB fromhearing deportation charges
against petitioners pending termination of the habeas corpusand/or prohibition proceedings.-

6. The DB then filed its answer to the original petition, saying as an authorized agent of thePresident, it has
jurisdiction over the charges filed, and the authority to order their arrest. TheCourt upheld the validity of the
delegation by the president to the Deportation Board of hispower to conduct the investigations. It also sustained the
power of the DB to issue warrant of arrest and fix bonds for the alien’s temporary release pending
investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised Adminsistrative Code.

Hence this appeal.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the President has powers to deport aliens and, consequently.
2. Whether or not the delegation to the DB of the ancillary power to investigate, carries with it the power to order
the arrest of the alien complained of

Ruling:

1. Yes. Section 69 of Act No. 2711 of RAC: No alien can be deported by the president EXCEPT
upon prior investigation, conducted by said executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon
which such action is contemplated

2. Yes, but only after investigation has resulted to the actual order of deportation. Arrest would
have been necessary for deportation to take effect. However, in the case at bar, investigations
were still on going and no order for deportation was yet made. Decision: E.O. No 398, series of
1951 declared illegal.

Case # 2

Kilosbayan vs. Ermita G.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007

Facts:

1. This case arose when respondent Gregory S. Ong was appointed by Executive Secretary, in representation of
the Office of the President, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

2. Petitioners contended that respondent Ong is a Chinese citizen, born on May 25, 1953 to Chinese parents.

3. Petitioners further added that even if it were granted that eleven years after respondent Ong’s birth, his father was
finally granted Filipino citizenship by naturalization,that, by itself, would not make respondent Ong a natural-born
citizen.

4. For his part, respondent Ong contended that he is a natural-born citizen and presented a certification
from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ declaring him to be such.

Issues:

Whether or not, respondent Ong is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

Ruling:
The petition is GRANTED.

Respondent Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged subsequent recognition of

his natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial
court stating that respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father.

The series of events and long string of alleged changes in the nationalities of respondent Ong's ancestors, by
various births, marriages and deaths, all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial
proceedings so as to correct the existing records on his birth and citizenship. The chain of
evidence would have to show that Dy Guiok Santos, respondent Ong's mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary
to what still appears in the records of this Court. Respondent Ong has the burden of proving in court his alleged
ancestral tree as wellas his citizenship under the time-line of three Constitutions. Until this is done, respondent Ong
cannot accept anappointment to this Court as that would be a violation of the Constitution. For this reason, he can
be preventedby injunction from doing so.

Case # 3

Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner Immigration, 41 SCRA 292

Facts:

1. Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8
February 1961. In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary
visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at
Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her
great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March
1961 for a period of one month.

2. On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to
undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines
on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this country or within the period as
in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative might
properly allow.

3. After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13
February 1962.

4. On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto
Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen.
5. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her
bond and order her arrest and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay,
she brought an action for injunction.

6. At the hearing, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and speak either English
or Tagalog, did not know her brothers or sisters-in-law and could only name one Filipino
neighbor (Rosa).

7. The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim
Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.

Issue:

Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a
Filipino citizen.

Ruling:

Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her
marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January
1962.

Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born
or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who
is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he
takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under said Section 4.
Case # 4

Zita Ngo Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248

Facts:

1. Zita Ngo, also known as Zita Ngo Burca filed a petition to declare herself— "as possessing all
qualifications and none of the qualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for
the purpose of cancelling her Alien Registry with the Bureau of Immigration".

2. The notice of hearing was sent to the Solicitor General and duly published.

3. The petition was opposed and moved to dismissal by the Solicitor General based on two main
grounds, viz: (1) that "there is no proceeding established by law, or the rules for the judicial
declaration of the citizenship of an individual"; and (2) that as an application for Philippine
citizenship, "the petition is fatally defective for failure to contain or mention the essential
allegations required under Section 7 of the Naturalization Law", such as, among others,
petitioner's former places of residence, and the absence of the affidavits of at least two
supporting witnesses.

4. On December 18, 1964, trial was held with the petitioner as sole witness. With the admission
of documentary evidence, the case was submitted for decision and petitioner was declared a
Filipino citizen dismissing the opposition by the Solicitor General.

Issue:

Whether or not the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in the case of citizenship of
Zita Ngo Burca.

Ruling:

The Court ruled in this case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases
of citizenship, the following must be present:
1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person
is a party;
2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution
thereof, and
3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.

The case was submitted solely on the testimony of the petitioner. No other witnesses were
presented which means that it does not meet with the legal requirement. The judgment appealed
from is hereby reversed and the petition dismissed, without costs. So ordered.