Title
Calacday vs. Vivo
Case
G.R. No. L-26681
Decision Date
May 29, 1970
Petitioners sought to halt deportation, claiming final citizenship rulings. Lower court issued injunction, but Supreme Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over pending administrative proceedings, emphasizing constitutional protections and judicial compliance.
Font Size:

Timeline (G.R. No. L-26681)

  1. Filing of Prohibition
    On May 14, 1965, petitioners filed a prohibition proceeding with the Court of First Instance of Manila against Acting Commissioner of Immigration Martiniano P. Vivo.

  2. Petitioners' Request
    Petitioners sought to enjoin Vivo from taking them into custody, conducting deportation proceedings, or canceling their identification certificates, claiming they were declared Filipino citizens.

  3. Previous Decisions
    Petitioners argued that prior decisions by the Board of Inquiry and the Board of Immigration Commissioners affirming their citizenship had become final and conclusive.

  4. Lower Court's Initial Ruling
    The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that Vivo lacked jurisdiction and ordered him to refrain from arresting or deporting them on September 19, 1966.

  5. Permanent Injunction
    The lower court's order included a declaration that the preliminary injunction issued on May 27, 1965, was made permanent.

  6. Certiorari and Prohibition Petition
    On May 28, 1965, Vivo filed a certiorari and prohibition petition against the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court.

  7. Supreme Court's Ruling
    On July 29, 1968, the Supreme Court upheld Vivo's contention that the lower court acted beyond its jurisdiction, as deportation proceedings had not been completed.

  8. Hearing Requirement
    The Supreme Court noted that the Board of Commissioners had to conduct a hearing to determine the citizenship or alienage of the respondents before any court review could occur.

  9. Reversal of Lower Court's Order
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's order of September 19, 1966, stating it lacked jurisdiction to act on the p...continue reading


Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.