G.R. No. L-26969 - Phua vs. Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration

Tan Sin Tee and her two minor children, Pua Ching Too and Pua Shing Shing, arrived in the Philippines from Hongkong on November 7, 1961.
They were documented as Filipino citizens, having been issued certificates of registration and identity on November 2, 1961 by the Philippine Consulate.
It later emerged that the signature of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs on the cablegram authorizing their documentation was a forgery.

Upon their arrival, the admission of Tan Sin Tee and her children was referred to a board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration.
After conducting the investigation, the board rendered a decision admitting them as Filipino citizens.
Tan Sin Tee was alleged to be the wife of Carpio Phua, a supposed Filipino citizen, with the two children presented as their legitimate offspring.

The minors were born on May 2, 1955, and January 24, 1956—within an interval of less than nine months—a fact that raised questions about the legitimacy of the birth intervals.
The decision of the board of special inquiry was later individually referred to the Board of Immigration Commissioners.
Commissioner Emilio Galang marked the decision with the word “Exclude” while Commissioners Francisco de la Rosa and Felix Talabis merely noted the decision, which functioned as an affirmance of the inquiry board’s ruling.
Despite the lack of a collective deliberation and meeting of the Commissioners, Tan Sin Tee and her children were issued identification certificates on December 13, 1961 as Filipino citizens.

On January 24, 1962, the Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum Order No. 9, directing the Board of Commissioners to review decisions of the board of special inquiry regarding the admission of aliens as Filipino citizens.
Subsequently, Immigration Commissioners Martiniano P. Vivo, Virgilio N. Gaston, and Marcial Ranola, motu proprio, rendered a decision dated November 14, 1962, excluding Tan Sin Tee and her children.
Their reasoning was founded on several doubts:

Inconsistencies regarding the alleged Philippine citizenship of Carpio Phua, notably the absence of his birth certificate and inadequate efforts to obtain one from his birthplace, Lauan, Samar.
The physical impossibility implied by the nine-month interval between the births of the two alleged minor children, for which no satisfactory explanation was offered.
The reliance on an inconclusive blood test to establish filiation.
The questionable validity of a marriage performed only according to old Chinese customs, with no evidence showing that the parties had the legal capacity to marry.

Before the warrant of exclusion could be executed, Carpio Phua along with his alleged wife and children initiated an action for prohibition, seeking a preliminary injunction against the execution of the exclusion order.
In 1966, the Court of First Instance of Manila declared the decision of the Immigration Commissioners void, set aside the warrant of exclusion, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
The Board of Immigration Commissioners subsequently appealed the decision of the lower court.

The appellees (Immigration Commissioners) did not submit any brief in response to the appeal.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court for final determination.

Whether the petitioners (Tan Sin Tee and her children) were denied due process of law in view of the administrative proceedings conducted by the Board of Commissioners.
Specifically, whether additional notice and a separate hearing were required during the review of the decision of the board of special inquiry.

Whether the initial hearing before the board of special inquiry sufficiently satisfied the requirements of due process under the Immigration Law.
Whether the actions (or inactions) of the Board of Immigration Commissioners in reviewing and affirming the inquiry board’s decision were consistent with the legal standards governing due process.