Title
Ang Liong vs. Commissioner of Immigration
Case
G.R. No. L-12231
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1959
Appellant's cash bonds forfeited after wife and son overstayed visa despite extensions; court upheld forfeiture, citing bond terms and immigration authority.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12231)

Facts:

  1. Application for Temporary Admission

    • The appellant, Ang Liong, applied for the temporary admission of his wife, Ong Siu, and son, Ang Hua, into the Philippines under Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.
    • On June 27, 1955, Ang Liong filed cash bonds totaling P14,000 with the Bureau of Immigration to guarantee compliance with the terms of their temporary stay.
  2. Arrival and Initial Stay

    • Ong Siu and Ang Hua arrived in the Philippines on August 1, 1955, and were granted a three-month temporary stay, expiring on November 1, 1955.
  3. Requests for Extension

    • On October 1, 1955, Attorney Jose R. Abalos requested an extension of their stay through the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
    • On November 7, 1955, the Commissioner of Immigration reminded Ang Liong that the authorized stay had expired and required the visitors to depart by November 12, 1955.
    • On November 10, 1955, Ang Liong requested an extension until November 30, 1955, citing family affairs and travel preparations. This request was denied.
    • On November 11, 1955, Ang Liong reiterated his request, promising not to seek further extensions.
    • On November 14, 1955, the Commissioner granted an extension until November 19, 1955.
    • On November 16, 1955, Attorney Apolonio A. Gonzales requested a three-month extension from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
    • On November 17, 1955, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs granted a three-month extension, provided the reentry permits remained valid and the cash bonds were maintained.
  4. Forfeiture of Bonds

    • On November 22, 1955, the Commissioner declared the cash bonds forfeited for violating the terms of the bond by failing to depart on November 19, 1955, and for requesting an extension.
    • Ang Liong was required to file new cash bonds within 48 hours or face arrest and confinement of the visitors.
    • On December 9, 1955, Ang Liong filed an additional cash bond of P3,000, and the visitors departed on January 7, 1956.
  5. Terms of the Cash Bonds

    • The bonds stipulated that the visitors would depart by the authorized date and that no requests for extensions would be filed.
    • Breach of these conditions would result in forfeiture of the bonds.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Violation of Bond Terms

    • The terms of the cash bonds explicitly prohibited requests for extensions and required the visitors to depart by the authorized date. The appellant’s failure to ensure compliance with these terms justified the forfeiture of the bonds.
  2. Authority of the Commissioner of Immigration

    • Under Commonwealth Act No. 613, the Commissioner of Immigration has the exclusive authority to regulate the admission and stay of aliens. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs’ grant of an extension did not override the Commissioner’s authority or the terms of the bonds.
  3. Contractual Obligations

    • The bonds were contractual agreements between the appellant and the Bureau of Immigration. The appellant’s undertakings in the bonds were binding, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs could not alter or modify these obligations.
  4. Public Interest

    • The enforcement of immigration laws and the terms of bonds is in the public interest. Allowing extensions without consequence would undermine the regulatory framework established by Commonwealth Act No. 613.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.