Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5300)
Facts:
Lam Shee v. Honorable Jose P. Bengzon, G.R. No. L-5300, October 30, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lam Shee (mother) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the production and release of her minor son Mah Shu Fong and his return to her custody; Honorable Jose P. Bengzon, Acting Commissioner of Immigration, answered as respondent. The respondent asserted the minor was subject to deportation because he “was not lawfully admissible at the time of entry” under the Philippine Immigration Act (Commonwealth Act No. 613).
Chronology: In 1936 Lam Shee entered the Philippines and was issued Landing Certificate of Residence No. 122881 (June 25, 1936) on the representation she was the wife of a resident Chinese merchant named Ham E; subsequently she bore other children in the Philippines. Her eldest son, Mah Shu Fong, remained in China until September 24, 1947, when, aged 17, he arrived in the Philippines with travel papers and a visa issued by the Philippine Vice‑Consul at Hong Kong. After a Bureau of Immigration Board of Special Inquiry investigation the minor was allowed to land as a preference‑quota immigrant and was issued Immigrant Certificate of Residence No. 26143.
On July 14, 1949 a warrant for the minor’s arrest was issued on the ground that petitioner had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence; during subsequent hearings the Board of Commissioners of Immigration found the charge well founded, ordered the minor’s deportation, and the Acting Commissioner issued a deportation warrant. The basis for the charge was petitioner’s admission that her earlier entry had been procured by misrepresenting herself as the wife of Ham E when in truth she was married to another Chinese, Mah Sek.
At the CFI, respondent relied on section 37‑a, paragraph 2 (and the court noted section 29‑a, paragraph 17) of Commonwealth Act No. 61...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Mah Shu Fong “not lawfully admissible at the time of entry” under Section 37‑a, paragraph 2 (and, alternatively, Section 29‑a, paragraph 17) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, thereby subjecting him to deportation?
- If the minor was technically inadmissible, did the circumstances — petitioner’s five‑year lapse since admission, immigration officials’ prior allowance of the minor’s landing, and considerations of equity and family unity — preclude deportation...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)