Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20513)
Facts:
Lim Chiok, Cheung Bo Choi alias Tiu Shu Bee, et al. v. Hon. Martiniano Vivo, G.R. No. L-20513, December 26, 1963, Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners-appellants are Cheung Bo Choi alias Tiu Shu Bee (mother) and her three minor children Lim Wan Thon, Lim Chin Doo, and Lim Chin Eng; the respondent-appellee is Hon. Martiniano Vivo, Commissioner of Immigration.
The family entered the Philippines on October 8, 1960 as temporary visitors for an initial three-month stay. At the petitioners' request the Commissioner of Immigration granted successive extensions of stay, the last of which was to expire on July 21, 1962. On January 23, 1961 the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the naturalization petition of the petitioners' husband and father.
Anticipating that the husband would take his oath and become a Filipino by January 1963, the petitioners applied to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of Justice for a change in category from temporary visitors to special non-immigrants; the two Secretaries granted the requested change and the extensions relied upon by petitioners. A subsequent Secretary of Foreign Affairs later declared that extension a nullity.
On June 25, 1962 petitioners asked the Commissioner of Immigration to permit them to pay extension fees so their stay would continue through January 23, 1963; the Commissioner refused and ordered them to leave the country within seven days. The petitioners filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain enforcement of the Immigration Commissioner's order; after hearing the trial court denied the petition. The petitioners appealed the trial court’s decision to the Supreme Court, challenging (1) the validity of the Cabinet Resolution of February 29, 1956, (2) the authority of the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice to grant the change i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Cabinet have legal authority under the Immigration Law to authorize the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice to extend the stay of temporary visitors?
- Were the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice authorized to change petitioners' status from temporary visitors to special non-immigrants and to grant extensions of stay?
- Did petitioners violate their contract with the Philippine Government by refusing to leave the country after the Immigration Commissioner ordered their exclusion?
- Did the grant of naturalization to petitioners' husband entitle the peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)