Title
Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board
Case
G.R. No. L-6038
Decision Date
Mar 19, 1955
Federico M. Chua Hiong secures a Supreme Court preliminary injunction halting his deportation proceedings while his citizenship claim is adjudicated.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6038)

Facts:

  • The case involves Federico M. Chua Hiong and the Deportation Board, initiated on February 26, 1952.
  • Chua Hiong was accused of fraudulently obtaining the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration on October 31, 1945.
  • He allegedly misrepresented himself as the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, Tita Umandap, while being the legitimate child of a Chinese woman, Sy Mua.
  • Charges included illegal exercise of rights reserved for Philippine citizens, such as suffrage and real estate acquisition.
  • A warrant for his arrest was issued on February 27, 1952; he posted bond for release.
  • Chua Hiong filed a motion to dismiss the deportation proceedings, claiming the Board lacked jurisdiction as he asserted his citizenship.
  • The Deportation Board denied his motion on July 7, 1952, stating it had the authority to evaluate his citizenship claim.
  • He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court on September 3, 1952, arguing his arrest lacked jurisdiction.
  • The Solicitor General contended the Board had jurisdiction and that the evidence was inconclusive.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • Yes, the Deportation Board has jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of the petitioner.
  • No, the evidence presented by the petitioner is not conclusive to support his claim of Filipino citizenship.
  • Yes, the deportation p...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the Deportation Board has the authority to assess citizenship claims of individuals facing deportation.
  • The court noted that the Board's jurisdiction is linked to the alienage of the respondent; if the respondent is a citizen, the Board lacks jurisdiction.
  • Although the petitioner presented documents supporting his citizenship claim, they were not conclusive.
  • The court emphasized the right of a citizen to live without the...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.