Title
Djumantan vs. Domingo
Case
G.R. No. 99358
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1995
Filipino worker Bernard Banez married Djumantan under Islamic law, misrepresented her status to immigration, leading to deportation proceedings. SC ruled deportation power prescribed after 5 years, granting Djumantan permanent residency.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 99358)

Facts:

  • Background of Parties and Marriage
    • Bernard Banez, a Filipino, went to Indonesia as a contract worker, embraced Islam on April 3, 1974, and on May 17, 1974, married petitioner Djumantan under Islamic rites.
    • They had two children: Marina (born 1977) and Nikulas (born 1978).
  • Entry into the Philippines and Change of Status
    • On January 13, 1979, petitioner and her two children entered the Philippines as “temporary visitors” under Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940, supported by an Affidavit of Guaranty and Support executed by Banez.
    • They were admitted as guests and lived in Banez’s house. In 1981, Banez’s eldest son filed a concubinage complaint (later dismissed) but also prompted a letter complaint to the CID.
    • On March 25, 1982, petitioner’s status was changed from temporary visitor to permanent resident under Section 13(a) of the Immigration Act; an Alien Certificate of Registration was issued on April 14, 1982.
  • Deportation Proceedings
    • Based on Leonardo Banez’s complaint, CID initiated Deportation Case No. 90-400; petitioner was initially detained, released on bond, then moved to dismiss on ground of valid marriage to a Filipino citizen.
    • On September 27, 1990, CID ordered revocation of her Section 13(a) visa and deportation, and denied reconsideration on January 29, 1991.
    • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, secured a temporary restraining order, and raised objections to the validity of the CID’s deportation power after five years.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner was lawfully admitted and validly acquired permanent resident status given alleged misrepresentations in her applications.
  • Whether the CID’s power to deport petitioner terminated by prescription under Section 37(b) of the Immigration Act of 1940.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.