Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27030)
Facts:
Pablo Gonzaga, Angel Gonzaga, Amador Gonzaga and Andres Gonzaga v. Hon. Martiniano P. Vivo in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. L-27030, March 06, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., J., writing for the Court.The petitioners — Pablo, Angel, Amador and Andres Gonzaga — arrived in the Philippines on December 12, 1961, at the Port of Manila aboard a Cathay Pacific Airways plane and sought admission as Filipino citizens, claiming to be children of one Roman Gonzaga. On December 18, 1961 the Board of Special Inquiry initially admitted them as Filipino citizens.
On administrative review, however, the Board of Commissioners, by decision dated March 8, 1962, held that the petitioners had not satisfactorily established their claim to Filipino citizenship and resolved to exclude them from the country; a warrant of arrest and exclusion was issued by the Commissioner of Immigration. In response, the petitioners filed, on July 8, 1965, a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branch, seeking to restrain the Commissioner from arresting and deporting them. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on October 23, 1965.
The respondent filed his answer and the parties submitted the case on a stipulation of facts and documentary evidence. On July 30, 1966, the Court of First Instance found that the petitioners had sufficiently established their Filipino citizenship, granted the petition for prohibition and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Commissioner of Immigration appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court treated the action as a review of the Board of Com...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance exceed its powers in reviewing the Board of Commissioners' administrative findings by relying on a stipulation not presented to the Board and by resolving factual issues on that basis?
- Did the petitioners sufficiently prove their claim to Filipino citizenship such that the Board of Commissioners' finding of insuffic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)