Facts:

The case involves Ang Ngo Chiong, a Chinese resident who emigrated to the Philippines in 1939, and later returned to China in 1947 to marry Sze Sook Yuen, alias Sy Siok Gan, in accordance with local laws. They had two children: Ang Un Bon and Ang Cho Sit. After establishing residence in the Philippines, Ang Ngo Chiong filed for naturalization as a Filipino citizen. Meanwhile, Sze Sook Yuen and her children applied for temporary visitor visas to the Philippines in March 1960, during which they declared their marriage to Ang Ngo Chiong. They were granted temporary admission and extended their stay several times while the children were enrolled in local schools. As Ang Ngo Chiong's naturalization hearing was pending, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Sze Sook Yuen and her children to leave the country by August 8, 1961. In response, they filed a special civil action for prohibition against the Commissioner, which was met with initial judicial resistance but eventually led

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Parties Involved
• Ang Ngo Chiong, a native of Sin Koe, Chinkiang, China, who later became a permanent Chinese resident of Manila.
• Sze Sook Yuen (alias Sy Siok Gan), the wife of Ang Ngo Chiong.
• Their minor children: Ang Un Bon, Ang Cho Sit, and later, Ester Sy Ang.
• Emilio Galang, in his capacity as Commissioner of Immigration, representing the respondent-appellant.
• Immigration and Naturalization Profiles
• Ang Ngo Chiong emigrated to the Philippines in 1939 and later returned to China in 1947.
• In China, he allegedly married Sze Sook Yuen according to local laws and had children by her.
• He subsequently returned to Manila without his wife and children, leaving their status in the Philippines initially as nonimmigrant aliens.

Chronological Narrative of Events

• Visa Application and Admission
• On March 7, 1960, Sze Sook Yuen and her two children applied for passport visas to visit the Philippines as nonimmigrant aliens for a period of thirty days.
• The documentation presented was proper, and on March 8, 1960, Sze Sook Yuen and her children were admitted into the Philippines as temporary visitors from Hongkong and Macao.
• Their temporary stay was repeatedly extended, during which the children were enrolled in local colleges (Sta. Rita College and San Sebastian College).
• Naturalization Process of Ang Ngo Chiong
• Ang Ngo Chiong filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 47663).
• The hearing was scheduled for August 2, 1961, and his petition was eventually granted by a decision dated September 8, 1962.
• No appeal was made from the naturalization decision, and it became final; Ang Ngo Chiong took his oath of allegiance on December 5, 1964.
• Immigration Order and Litigation Regarding Deportation
• In the meantime, as the last extension for the temporary stay of Sze Sook Yuen and her children expired on August 8, 1961, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered them to depart on or before that date.
• On August 4, 1961, four days before the extension’s expiration, the family filed a special civil action for prohibition to restrain the Commissioner from arresting and deporting Sze Sook Yuen and her children and to prevent the forfeiture of their cash bond (Civil Case No. 47705).
• Initially, on August 9, 1961, the lower court denied the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, but later reconsidered and issued the injunction restraining arrest and bond forfeiture.
• On November 5, 1961, during the pendency of the case, a third child, Ester Sy Ang, was born.
• Lower Court Proceedings and Final Decision in the Instant Case
• After trial, on May 30, 1963, the lower court granted the writ of prohibition, enjoining the Commissioner from arresting and deporting Sze Sook Yuen and her three children.
• The court’s ruling was based on the application of section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which holds that the wife and minor children of a naturalized Filipino acquire Philippine citizenship.
• Additionally, the lower court declared section 37(a) of the Immigration Law unconstitutional and held that the bond form used by Sze Sook Yuen and her children was illegal, though these latter rulings were not controlling for the final outcome.

Legal and Statutory Framework

• Application of Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law
• Provides that any woman married to a citizen of the Philippines, including those who acquire citizenship through naturalization, is deemed a Philippine citizen provided she is not disqualified under section 4.
• Minor children born in the Philippines of persons naturalized under this law automatically acquire Philippine citizenship; foreign-born minor children dwelling in the Philippines at the time of naturalization also acquire citizenship.
• Immigration Law Provisions
• Section 37(a) of the Immigration Law empowers the Commissioner of Immigration to order the arrest of aliens who are subject to deportation.
• The validity of the bond form used for ensuring compliance with immigration orders was also scrutinized, with reliance on prior decisions such as Morano vs. Vivo to support its legality.
• Subsequent Governmental and Administrative Opinions
• Reference is made to Opinion No. 38 (series of 1958) of the Acting Secretary of Justice regarding the petition for the cancellation of the alien certificate of registration by the married alien woman.

Issue:

Whether Sze Sook Yuen and her children automatically acquired Philippine citizenship under section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law upon the naturalization and oath-taking of Ang Ngo Chiong.

• Whether the legal presumption of citizenship for the spouse of a naturalized citizen applies in this context, given that Sze Sook Yuen did not display any disqualifications under section 4.
• Whether the minor children, including the third child born during the pendency of the case, automatically acquired citizenship under the same provision.

Whether the actions of the Commissioner of Immigration, particularly the issuance of a warrant for arrest and the confiscation of the cash bond, were proper in light of the established citizenship derived under section 15.

• Whether the issuance of the warrant for arrest prior to a final deportation order complies with constitutional requirements and relevant jurisprudence.
• Whether the extension of the temporary stay was properly terminated and the subsequent deportation order was legally justified.

Whether the lower court erred in holding that:

• Section 37(a) of the Immigration Law is unconstitutional.
• The bond form used for the petitioners-appellees, which was not approved by the Secretary of Justice, was illegal.
• And, if any error in these determinative issues would affect the granting of the writ of prohibition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)