Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21289)
Procedural History
• Complaint for writ of preliminary and permanent injunction filed in CFI Manila (Civil Case No. 49705)
• Preliminary injunction denied; hearing on merits conducted
• Trial court ruled that marriage does not ipso facto confer citizenship unless the alien wife possesses all naturalization qualifications and lacks all statutory disqualifications; petition dismissed
• Appealed to the Supreme Court
Applicable Law and Constitution
• 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force at decision date)
• Naturalization Laws: Commonwealth Act No. 473 (“Revised Naturalization Law”)
– Sec. 2: Qualifications for judicial naturalization (age, continuous residence, good moral character, property or lawful occupation, language proficiency, intent to renounce foreign allegiance)
– Sec. 4: Disqualifications (opposition to organized government, polygamy, crimes of moral turpitude, mental alienation, contagious disease, lack of social integration, wartime nationality, non-reciprocal naturalization laws)
– Sec. 15: “Any woman … married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”
Issues Presented
- Does Sec. 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law confer Philippine citizenship automatically upon an alien wife who is “lawfully naturalizable,” without requiring proof of the qualifications listed in Sec. 2?
- May a non-immigrant alien woman, who has become a Filipino citizen by marriage, be required to depart and re-enter under Sec. 9(g) of the Philippine Immigration Act?
- Did the Commissioner of Immigration abuse his discretion by threatening deportation and bond forfeiture after Lau’s marriage?
Trial Court’s Rationale
• Interpreted Sec. 15 to incorporate both naturalization qualifications and disqualifications
• Found Lau lacked the ten-year residence, language proficiency, property/occupation requirement and had not enrolled minor children in Philippine schools
• Concluded marriage was a contrivance to defeat immigration law and that the Commissioner’s actions did not constitute abuse of discretion
• Denied injunction
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Sec. 9(g) Immigration Act inapplicable once an alien legitimately becomes a Filipino—immigration law governs aliens, not citizens. An alien who acquires Philippine citizenship may not be deported nor have bond forfeited for “overstaying.”
- Sec. 15, Revised Naturalization Law, is a verbatim enactment of U.S. law (Rev. Stat. 1994) as interpreted in American jurisprudence. Under longstanding U.S. precedents, marriage to a citizen vests citizenship ipso facto in an alien wife provided she belongs to the class of persons who may lawfully be naturalized—that is, she is free from statutory disqualifications. The American courts did not treat judicial naturalization qualifications (residence period, moral character, language) as prerequisites to derivative citizenship by marriage.
- Philippine legisl
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21289)
Factual Background
- Lau Yuen Yeung, a Chinese national residing in Kowloon, Hong Kong, applied on February 8, 1961 for a one-month non-immigrant visa to visit her great-grand uncle in the Philippines.
- She was admitted on March 13, 1961 upon a P1,000 bond guaranteeing her departure by April 13, 1961; her stay was extended repeatedly until February 13, 1962.
- On January 25, 1962, she married Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, alleged to be a Filipino citizen.
- The Commissioner of Immigration threatened bond confiscation, arrest and deportation upon her failure to depart after February 13, 1962.
- At the lower court hearing, Lau Yuen Yeung demonstrated limited ability in English/Tagalog and scant social ties to Filipinos.
Procedural History
- Civil Case No. 49705 (CFI Manila): petitioners sought preliminary and permanent injunction against the Commissioner’s deportation orders; preliminary injunction denied and case tried on merits; petition dismissed.
- Petitioners-appellants assigned six errors ranging from statutory interpretation (Revised Naturalization Law Sec. 15; Immigration Act Sec. 9(g)) to alleged abuse of discretion by the Commissioner.
- Supreme Court granted appeal; Justice Barredo delivered the principal opinion; Justices Dizon, Castro, Teehankee and Villamor concurred; Justices Concepcion, Zaldivar and Makasiar dissented; Justices Reyes and Makalintal filed separate opinions.
Issues
- Whether section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) deems an alien woman automatically a Filipino citizen upon marriage to a Filipino, provided she “might herself be lawfully naturalized.”
- Whether the qualifications (Sec. 2) and disqualifications (Sec. 4) prescribed by the Naturalization Law apply to alien wives for citizenship by marriage.
- Whether an ad