BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS vs. HON. JOSELITO DELA ROSA G.R. NOS. 95122-23 31 May 1991 Bidin FACTS
July 1960 - Santiago Santiago Gatchalian, an illegitimate child to a Chinese father (Pablo Pacheco) and a Filipino mother (Mariana Gatchalian), was recognized as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his mother. He also declared that he has 5 children with his Chinese wife Chu Gin Tee. One of them was Francisco, William Gatchalian’s father. 27 June 1961 – 1961 – 12-year 12-year old William, together with his father Francisco, arrived in Manila from Hong Kong. They had with them certificates of Registration and Identity issued by the Philippine consulate in Hong Kong and they sought admission as Filipino citizens. 6 July 1961 – – Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 (BSI1) admitted William and his companions as Filipino citizens. 24 January 1962 – Secretary – Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners (BOC) on appeal or on review. The Secretary of Justice asked the BOC to review all the cases where entry was allowed on the grounds of the entran t being a Filipino citizen. Among those cases was that of William. 6 July 1962 – 1962 – The The BOC reversed the initial decision of the BSI1 and ordered the exclusion of William Gatchalian. A warrant of exclusion was issued alleging that the BOC decision was final and executory. 1973 – 1973 – Respondent Respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by the July 6, 1962 filed a motion for re-hearing with the BSI. 15 March 1973 – 1973 – Acting Acting Commissioner Victor Nituda issued an order reaffirming the 6 July 1961 decision to admit Gatchalian as a Filipino citizen. The warrant of arrest was also recalled. 7 June 1990 – 1990 – Acting Acting NBI Commissioner wrote to the Secretary of Justice recommending that William be charged with violation of the Immigration Act of 1940 (Commonwealth Act. No. 613). 15 August 1990 – 1990 – order order to arrest Gatchalian was issued. He later was released upon posting a Php 200,000 bond. BOC contends that William’s arrest foll ows as a matter of consequence the Warrant of Exclusion issued on 6 July 1962. On the other hand, William argues that the Mission Order of Warrant of Arrest does mention that it is issued pursuant to a final order of deportation or warrant of exclusion.
ISSUES
W/N William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen based on the validity of his parents’ marriage abroad. (i.e. w/n he has been an alien the whole time he has been residing in the Philippines) W/N the warrant warrant of arrest by the Board of Commissioners Commissioners and the Commission on Immigration and Deportation was valid. W/N the prescriptive period to deport Gatchalian, Gatchalian, assuming he was was an alien, has elapsed.
HELD
YES. His grandfather, Santiago Gatchalian, was was born of a Filipina mother, despite being an illegitimate child. His father, Francisco Gatchalian, and he were certified as Filipinos by the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong. However, this was contested by the BOC after the review. Petitioners claimed that William Gatchalian is an alien, despite the certification signed by the Secretary of Foreign affairs and despite his having lived in the country for 28 yrs. thereafter. They held that the state could use police power in order to arrest and then deport him. They pointed out that both his grandfather and his father married Chinese women in China and that no evidence was produced regarding the authenticity nor the existence of claimed marriages. There was no actual proof that these marriages in China were valid or even real; and if the contrary is true, Francisco Gatchalian and William Gatchalian were never Filipino citizens because they would have taken the citizenship of the land (if jus soli applies in China) or the citizenship of their mothers, Chinese (if jus sanguinis applies in China). The lack of evidence of the validity of these marriages in China is the focal point of the petitioners’ arguments. The court holds that it is not the respondent’s fault that they weren’t able to produce any documentation regarding the validity of the marriages in China. The Citizenship Investigations Board, upon asking of proof of said marriages, were satisfied with the testimony of Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. Much more can this deficiency be blamed on William Gatchalian, who was only a minor during his migration to the Philippines. Santiago and Francisco Gatchalian’s testimonies were admissible in evidence evid ence as declarations regarding their family’s reputation. Any doubt doubt to these declarations declarations is cast cast aside by Art. 226, 226, which which leans toward toward the validity of the marriage. Therefore, the testimonies are considered competent proof. Therefore, the marriages are considered valid and Francisco follows the nationality of his father, as a legitimate child of the latter.
NO. Pursuant to Sec. 37 (a) of Commonwealth Act 613, a warrant of arrest may only be issued by the Bureau of Immigration (then the Commission on Immigration and Deportation) if the sole purpose of the arrest is to execute a final order of deportation. YES. BOC’s argument that the arrest came 28 years after the alleged cause of deportation arose cannot be sustained because section 37 (b) of Commonwealth Act 613 states that deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five (5) years after the cause of deportation arises. In this case, the alleged cause of action and deportation against William arose in 1962. However, the warrant of arrest was issued only on August 15, 1990 — 28 long years after. It is clear that petitioners' cause of action has already prescribed.
Petition of BOC to pursue the arrest and deportation of Gatchalian is DISMISSED.
DISSENTING OPINIONS Feliciano, J. Dissenting:
Respondent William Gatchalian’s claim to Philippine citizenship rests upon a fragile web constructed out of self-serving oral testimony, a total lack of official documentation, of negative facts and of invocation of presumptions without proof of essential factual premises. The premises of his citizenship are open to very serious doubt. The certification of their citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration does not close the issue for investigation by the Supreme Court. The citizenship of their line must be examined more closely.
DOCTRINES and PROVISIONS:
Art. 71 of the Civil Code (now Art. 26 of Family Code) – lex – lex loci celebrationis – celebrationis – a a marriage formally valid where celebrated is valid everywhere.
-
“…all marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country…”
Art 220 of the Civil Code
-
“… in case of doubt, all presumptions f avor avor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of the children, the community of property during marria ge, the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression.”
Res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship if the claim to citizenship is not satisfactorily proven.
In order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present: (1) A (1) A person’s person’s citizenship citizenship must not be raised raised as material evidence evidence in a controversy controversy where said person is a party; (2) The Solicitor General or his authorized representatives or citizenship took active part in the resolution thereof; and (3) The finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court. A warrant warrant of arrest arrest issued by the Commission Commissioner er of Immigration Immigration for purposes of investigation only, as in the case at bar, is null and void for being unconstitutional. Deportation shall not be affected unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within 5 years after the cause of deportation arises. Whether or not the parents were admitted into the country and their children accepted as Filipino citizens illegally, it is too late to deport the children after having allowed the mother to remain even illegally.
