G.R. No. L-21775 - Co Pek vs. Vivo

On November 28, 1960, petitioner Lim Wun Chee, along with her minor children—Chong Yum Ting alias Co Yum Ting, Co Ngor alias Chong Nor Ngor, Co Yum Fai alias Hong Yum Fax, Co Woon alias Chong Lai Woon, and Co Lai Lam alias Chong Lai Lam (ages 13, 7, 6, 4, and 3, respectively)—applied at the Philippine Consulate General in Hongkong for a non-immigrant passport visa to the Philippines.
In support of the visa application, Lim Wun Chee executed an affidavit stating that she and her children would “visit” their husband/father, Co Pek (alias Chong Wing Fai), who was a permanent resident in Manila, and that they would not apply for any change of status during their stay, remaining in the country for only three months unless extended by proper authorities.
A temporary visitor’s visa (Cabinet Policy No. 210) was issued to them upon the filing of a cash bond of ₱30,000.00 by Co Pek with the Commissioner of Immigration in Manila.
The group arrived in the Philippines on December 16, 1960.

On February 8, 1961, Co Pek’s application for naturalization was granted by the Court of First Instance of Manila.
On April 13, 1961, based on the Cabinet Policy of February 29, 1956, a subsequent extension of stay was granted to Lim Wun Chee and her children, extending their stay until February 8, 1963.
On January 15, 1962, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, with concurrence by the Secretary of Justice, nullified and declared without effect the extensions granted under the said Cabinet Policy.
Consequently, the Commissioner of Immigration required that Lim Wun Chee and her children leave the country on or before September 9, 1962.

Petitioners (Co Pek, Lim Wun Chee, and the children) sought judicial relief by petitioning the Court of First Instance of Manila through Civil Case No. 51499.
They requested an injunction to restrain the Commissioner of Immigration from arresting or deporting them and from confiscating the ₱30,000.00 cash bond.
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on September 14, 1962 to prevent their arrest and deportation pending the case’s resolution.

During the proceedings, it was admitted by the petitioners that in order to comply with the naturalization law, Co Pek’s naturalization required his minor children to continue their education in a government-recognized school where Philippine history, government, and civics were taught.
Their entry into the Philippines, which was originally facilitated on the basis of a temporary visitor’s visa, was later revealed to be strategically aimed at ensuring Co Pek’s qualification for naturalization and subsequent acquisition of Philippine citizenship.
This admission underscored that the true intent was not merely a short-term visit but a process to secure permanent status through naturalization.

On July 11, 1963, Judge Francisco Arca of the lower court rendered a decision granting the petition, declaring Lim Wun Chee and her children citizens of the Philippines by virtue of Co Pek’s naturalization.
The decision ordered the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel the alien registry and immigration papers of Lim Wun Chee and the children and to refund the ₱30,000.00 cash bond.
The Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner of Immigration, appealed the decision.
The pertinent legal provision involved was Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which discusses the effect of a naturalized Filipino’s citizenship on his wife and minor children, subject to the condition that the wife is capable of being lawfully naturalized.

The affidavit executed by Lim Wun Chee at the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong clearly indicated their intent to enter as temporary visitors, without any intention to change status permanently.
Contrary to this representation, subsequent admissions revealed that their entry was intended to facilitate Co Pek’s naturalization.
Petitioners later filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as academic, asserting that Lim Wun Chee had re-entered the country under a different provision as a quota immigrant and that the cash bond had already been refunded.
Notwithstanding the petitioners’ later arguments, the Court deemed it necessary to deliberate on the merits of the appeal in light of the overarching interests of justice and state welfare.

Whether the naturalization of Co Pek automatically conferred Philippine citizenship on his wife and minor children under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, especially considering the requirement that the wife must be capable of being legally naturalized.

The issue centers on whether mere marriage to a naturalized Filipino suffices for automatic citizenship when there is an absence of evidence that the wife meets all qualifications for naturalization.

Whether the initial entry of Lim Wun Chee and her minor children into the Philippines was procured fraudulently by misrepresenting their intent to stay only temporarily, while their actual purpose was to facilitate Co Pek’s naturalization.

The representations made in the affidavit contrasted with the later admissions concerning their intended permanent stay.
The legal implications of such misrepresentations and the resultant consequences on the granting of immigration privileges were called into question.

Whether the immigration authorities and the lower court improperly extended favorable treatment to petitioners who entered under false pretenses and whether such conduct should compel the cancellation of their visa and naturalization-based citizenship claims.