562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the Commissioner of Immigration in pursuance of

Morano vs. Vivo a valid law. The requirement of probable cause, to be

determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation
No. L-22196. June 30, 1967, proceedings.
ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN Same;  Deprivation of liberty by agencies other
FUN, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. MARTINIANO than courts.—There are cases of deprivation of liberty
Vivo in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of which are sanctioned by due process and which are
Immigration, respondent-appellant. effected by means other than by order of a competent
Citizenship;  Aliens;  When alien woman married to court.
a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen.—In order Aliens; Deportation; Nature of dep ortation.—The
that an alien woman married to a Filipino may acquire power to deport aliens is an attribute of sovereignty.
Philippine citizenship, the marriage must be valid and Such power is based on the accepted maxim of
the alien woman herself might be lawfully naturalized. international law, that every sovereign nation has the
The validity of the marriage is presumed. inherent power, essential to self-preservation, to forbid
Same;  Meaning of "might herself be lawfully entrance of foreigners within its dominions.
naturalized".—The marriage of an alien woman to a Same;  Immigration; Deportation of overstaying
Filipino citizen does not ipso facto make her a Filipino aliens.—Aliens, admitted as temporary visitors, who do
citizen. She must satisfactorily show that she has all not depart upon the expiration of the period of stay
the qualifications and none of the disqualifications granted them, are subject to deportation by the
provided in the Naturalization Law. Commissioner of Immigration. They have violated the
Constitutional Law;  Unreasonable searches and limitation or condition under which they were admitted
seizures; Aliens;  Deportation;  Arrest of overstaying as nonimmigrants.
alien.—The constitutional provision against Constitutional Law;  Immigration; Power of
unreasonable searches and seizures does not require Immigration Commissioner to deport overstaying alien
judicial intervention in the execution of a final order of visitors is constitutional.—Section 37 of the
deportation issued in accordance with law. It Immigration Law, which empowers the Commissioner
contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of of Immigration to issue warrants for the arrest of
judicial power as a step preliminary or incidental to overstaying aliens, is constitutional. The arrest is a
prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or step preliminary to the deportation of the aliens who
administrative action, not as a measure indispensable had violated the condition of their stay in this country.
to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, Immigration;  Quota immigrant.—An alien woman,
such as a legal order of deportation, issued by admitted to the Philippines as a tourist-temporary
563 visitor, who married a Filipino citizen, may reenter this
VOL. 20, JUNE 30, 1967 563 country, after the expiration of her temporary stay, as
Morano vs. Vivo a quota immigrant, provided that she departs
voluntarily to some foreign country; that she procures
from the appropriate consul the proper visa and that enjoyed benefits therefrom. He cannot in law and good
she undergoes examination by the immigration conscience be allowed to reap the fruits of that bond
officials at the port of entry to determine her and then jettison it. He is precluded from attacking its
admissibility under the Immigration Law. validity.
Same;  Reasons for the requirements.—The above Same;  Confiscation of bond.—The bond of an
requisites are intended to discourage entry under false overstaying alien visitor is subject to confiscation.
pretenses and to avoid a circumvention of the
Immigration Law. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First
Citizenship;  Naturalization;  "Child" in section 15 of Instance of Manila.
Revised Naturalization Law refers to legitimate child.—
The word "child" in section 15 of the Revised Natural The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
ization Law refers to a legitimate child, not a stepchild.      Engracio Fabre Law Office far petitioners-
The term "child" in section 1(3) of Article IV of the appellants.
Constitution also refers to legitimate child.      Solicitor General Arturo A.
Immigration;  Change of status to
Alafriz and Solicitor A. M. Amores for respondent-
permanent resident.—The status of a temporary visitor
cannot be converted into that of a permanent resident appellant.
without first complying with section 9 of the
Immigration Law. SANCHEZ, J.:
Same;  Immigration bonds; Effect of lack of
approval.—'The provision requiring approval of an Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen born in Fukien,
immigration bond is China on January 6, 1932, arrived in the
564 Philippines on November 23, 1961 to visit her
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED cousin, Samuel Lee Malaps. She left in mainland
Morano vs. Vivo China two of her children by a first marriage: Fu
merely directory. Irregularity or entire failure in Tse Haw and Fu Yan Kai. With her was Fu Yan Fun,
this respect does not affect the validity of the bond. her minor son also by the first marriage, born in
Moreover, the fact that the government has not Hongkong on September 11, 1957.
questioned the form of the bond indicates that it Chan Sau Wah and her minor son Fu Yan Fun
counts with the approval of the Secretary of Justice as were permitted only into the Philippines under a
required by law. temporary visitor's visa for two (2) months and
Same;  Estoppel to question immigration bond.— after they posted a cash bond of P4,000.00.
Equitable consideration estops an alien obligor from
On January 24, 1962, Chan Sau Wah married
pleading the invalidity of his bond for lack of approval
by the Secretary of Justice. He offered that bond to Esteban Morano, a native-born Filipino citizen.
enable himself to enter and stay in this country, He
Born to this union on September 16, 1962 was "IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
Esteban Morano, Jr. rendered as follows:
To prolong their stay in the Philippines, Chan
Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several 1. (a)Granting this petition for Mandamus and
extensions. The last extension expired on Prohibition with respect to petitioner CHAN SAU
WAH, who is hereby declared a citizen of the
September 10, 1962.
Philippines; ordering the respondent to cancel
In a letter dated August 31, 1962, the her Alien Certificate of Registration and other
Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau immigration papers, upon the payment of
Wah and her son, Fu Yan proper dues; and declaring the preliminary
565 injunction with respect to her permanent,
VOL. 20, JUNE 30, 1967 565 prohibiting the respondent, his representatives
Morano vs. Vivo or subordinates from arresting and/or
Fun, to leave the country on or before September deporting said petitioner;
10, 1962 with. a warning that upon failure so to 2. (b)Dismissing this petition with respect to
do, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will petitioner FU YAN FUN, and dissolving the writ
of preliminary injunction issued herein,
cause the confiscation of their bond.
restraining the respondent, his representatives
Instead of leaving the country, on September or subordinates from. arresting and/or
10, 1962, Chan Sau Wah (with her husband deporting said petitioner;
Esteban Morano) and Fu Yan Fun petitioned the 3. (c)Authorizing respondent Commissioner to
Court of First Instance of Manila for mandamus to forfeit the bond filed by herein petitioners
compel the Commissioner of Immigration to CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN in the amount
cancel petitioners' Alien Certificates of of P4,000.00; and
Registration; prohibition to stop the Commissioner 4. (d)Denying, for lack of merit, the prayer to
from issuing a warrant for their arrest, and declare Sec. 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration
preliminary injunction to restrain the Act of 1940 unconstitutional;
Commissioner from confiscating their cash bond
_______________
and from issuing warrants of arrest pending
resolution of this case.  The trial court, on
1 1
 Civil Case No. 51538 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
November 3, 1962, issued the writ of preliminary entitled "Esteban Morano, Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun,
petitioners, vs. Hon. Martiniano Vivo, in his capacity as Acting
injunction prayed for, upon a P2,000-bond. After Commissioner of Immigration, respondent."
trial and the stipulations of facts 'filed by the 566
parties, the Court of First Instance rendered 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
judgment, viz:
 Morano vs. Vivo all the qualif ications and none of the disqualif
Without pronouncement as to costs." ications required by the Naturalization Law.  Ly 3

Petitioners and respondent Commissioner both Giok Ha alias Wy Giok Ha, et al. vs. Emilio
appealed. Galang, L-21332, March 18, 1966,  clearly writes
*

We will deal with the claims of both appellants down the philosophy behind the rule in the
in their proper sequence. following expressive language, viz:
1. The Solicitor General's brief assails the trial. _______________
court's declaration that Chan Sau Wah is a citizen  Record below, pp. 181-182.
2

of the Philippines. The court a quo took the  Lo San Tuang vs. Galang, L-18775, November 30,
3

position that "Chan Sau Wah became, by virtue of, 1963; Sun Peck Young vs. Commissioner of Immigration, L-
and upon, her marriage to Esteban Morano, a 20784, December 27, 1963; Tong Siok Sy vs. Vivo, L-21136,
December 27, 1963; Lao Chay vs. Galang, L-19977, October 30,
natural-born Filipino, a Filipino citizen."  Placed to
2

1964; Choy King Tee vs. Galang, L-18351, March 26,

the fore is paragraph 1, Section 15 of 1965; Austria vs. Conchu, L-20716, June 22, 1965; Brito vs.
Commonwealth Act 473 [Revised Naturalization Commissioner of Immigration, L-16829, June 30, 1965; Santos
Act], which reads: Chan vs. Galang, L-21732, October 17, 1966.
 Reported in 16 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 414.
*

"SEC. 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and

567
children.—Any woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might
VOL. 20, JUNE 30, 1967 567
herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a Morano vs. Vivo
citizen 01 the Philippines." "Reflection will reveal why this must be so. The
To apply this provision, two requisites must qualifications prescribed under section 2 of the
concur: (a) valid marriage of an alien woman to a Naturalization Act, and the disqualifications
citizen of the Philippines and (b) the alien woman enumerated in its section 4, are not mutually
exclusive; and if all that were to be required is that the
herself might be lawfully naturalized.
wife of a Filipino be not disqualified under section 4,
We may concede that the first requisite has the result might well be that citizenship would be
been properly met. The validity of the marriage is conferred upon persons in violation of the policy of the
presumed. statute. For example, section 4 disqualif ies only—
But can the same be said of the second '(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of
requisite? This question by all means is not new. polygamy; and
In a series of cases, this Court has declared that (d) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral
the marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino turpitude,'
citizen does not ipso facto make her a Filipino so that a blackmailer, or a. maintainer of gambling
citizen. She must satisfactorily show that she has or bawdy houses, not previously convicted by a
competent court, would not be thereby disqualified;
still it is certain that the law did not intend such a the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the
person to be admitted as a citizen in view of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien:
requirement of section 2 that an applicant for x      x      x      x      x      x      x      x      x
citizenship 'must be of good moral character.' 568
Similarly, the citizen's wife might be a convinced 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
believer in racial supremacy, in government by certain Morano vs. Vivo
selected classes, in the right to vote exclusively by (7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in
certain 'herrenvolk,' and thus disbelieve in the violation of any limitation or condition under which he
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; yet was admitted as a nonimmigrant."
she would not be disqualified under section 4, as long Petitioners argue that the legal precept just
as she is not 'opposed to organized government,' nor
quoted trenches upon the constitutional mandate
affiliated to groups 'upholding or teaching doctrines
opposing all organized governments,' nor 'defending or in Section 1(3), Article III [Bill of Rights] of the
teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, Constitution, to wit:
personal assault or assassination for the success or "(3) The right of the people to be secure in their
predominance of their ideas,' Et sic de caeteris." persons, houses, papers, and effects against
Upon the principle of selective citizenship, we unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon
cannot afford to depart from the wise precept
probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
affirmed and reaffirmed in the cases heretofore examination under oath or affirmation of the
noted. complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
In the additional stipulation of facts of July 3, particularly describing the place to be searched, and
1963, petitioners admit that Chan Sau Wah is not the persons or things to be seized." They say that the
possessed of all the qualifications required by the Constitution limits to judges the authority to issue
Naturalization Law. warrants of arrest and that the legislative delegation of
Because of all these, we are left under no doubt such power to the Commissioner of Immigration is thus
that petitioner Chan Sau Wah did not become a violative of the Bill of Rights.
Filipino citizen. Section 1(3), Article III of the Constitution, we
2. Squarely put in issue by petitioners is the perceive, does not require judicial intervention in
constitutionality of Section 37 (a) of the the execution of a final order of deportation issued
Immigration Act of 1940, which reads: in accordance with law. The constitutional
"SEC. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the
upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration exercise of judicial power  as a step preliminary or
4

or of any other officer designated by him for the incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a
purpose and deported upon the warrant of the given offense or administrative action, not as a
Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by
measure indispensable to carry out a valid In consequence, the constitutional guarantee set
decision by a competent official, such as a legal forth in Section 1(3), Article III of the Constitution
order of deportation, issued by the Commissioner aforesaid, requiring that the issue of probable
of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation. cause be determined by a judge, does not extend
The following from American Jurisprudence,  is 5
to deportation proceedings. 6

illuminating: The view we here express finds support in the

"It is thoroughly established that Congress has power discussions during the constitutional convention.
to order the deportation of aliens whose presence in The convention recognized, as sanctioned by due
the country it deems hurtful. Owing to the nature of process, possibilities and cases of deprivation of
the proceeding, the deportation of an alien who is liberty, other than by order of a competent court. 7

found in this country in violation of law is not a

Indeed, the power to deport or expel aliens is
deprivation of liberty without due process of law. This
is so, although the inquiry devolves upon executive
an attribute of sovereignty. Such power is planted
officers, and their findings of fact, after a fair though on the "accepted maxim of international law, that
summary hearing, are made conclusive." every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent
     x      x      x      x      x in sovereignty. and essential to self-preservation,
"The determination of the propriety of deportation is to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its
not a prosecution for, or a conviction of, crime; nor is dominions."  So it is, that this Court once aptly
8

the deporta- remarked that there can be no controversy on the

_______________ fact that where aliens are admitted as temporary
4
 Tu Chuan Hai vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 55 O.G. No. visitors, "the law is to the effect that temporary
28, pp. 5272, 5274-5275. visitors who do not depart upon the expiration of
5
 2 Am. Jur., p. 517. the period of stay granted them are subject to
569
deportation by the Commissioner of Immigration,
VOL. 20, JUNE 30, 1967 569 for having violated the limitation or condition
Morano vs. Vivo under which they were admitted as non-
tion a punishment, even though the facts underlying immigrants (Immigration Law, Sec. 37(a),
the decision may constitute a crime under local law. subsection (7); C.A. 613, as amended)." 9

The proceeding is in effect simply a refusal by the _______________

government to harbor persons whom it does not want.
The coincidence of local penal law with the policy of 6
 Tu Chuan Hai vs Commissioner of Immigration, supra; Abel
Congress is purely accidental, and, though supported vs. United States, supra, at pp. 681-683.
by the same facts, a criminal prosecution and a 7
 Laurel's Records of the Proceedings of the Constitutional
proceeding for deportation are separate and Convention, Vol. VIII, pp. 86-89. Justice Laurel here makes
mention of arrests in a "contempt proceeding of the
independent." Legislature."
 8
 Nishimura Ekiu vs. U.S., 142 U.S. 651, 35 L. ed. 1146, 1149. Sections 9 and 13 of the Immigration Act of 1940,
9
 Ong See Lun and Go Uan vs. Board of Immigration and Jose
P. Bengzon, etc., 95 Phil. 785: 788.
as amended by Republic Act 503.
570 We first go to the law, viz:
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED "SEC. 9[Iast paragraph]
An alien who is admitted as a nonimmigrant cannot
Morano vs. Vivo remain in the Philippines permanently. To obtain
And, in a case directly in point, where the power permanent admission, a nonimmigrant alien must
of the Commissioner to issue warrants of depart voluntarily to some foreign country and procure
arrest was from the appropriate Philippine consul the proper visa
challenged as unconstitutional, because "such and thereafter undergo examination by the officers of
power is only vested in a judge by Section 1, the Bureau of Immigration at a Philippine port
_______________
paragraph 3, Article III of our Constitution," this
Court declared— 10
 Ng Hua To vs. Galang, L-19140, February 29, 1964.
"This argument overlooks the fact that the stay of NOTE: Petitioners' bond herein contains the following stipulation: "(a) That
appellant Ng Hua To as temporary visitor is subject to the undersigned, with full knowledge that SEE ABOVE are tourist-temporary
visitors whose authorized stay in this country is limited only up to and
certain contractual stipulations as contained in the including FIFTY-NINE (59) DAYS 19—, hereby undertake that said SEE
cash bond put up by him, among them, that in case of ABOVE will actually depart from the Philippines on or before said date so
specified, or within such period as, in his discretion, the Commissioner of
breach the Commissioner may require the Immigration or his authorized representative may properly allow."
recommitment of the person in whose favor the bond 571
has been filed. The Commissioner did nothing but to VOL. 20. JUNE 30, 1967 571
enforce such condition. Such a step is necessary to
enable the Commissioner to prepare the ground for his Morano vs. Vivo
deportation under section 37(a) of Commonwealth Act of entry for determination of his admissibility in
613. A contrary interpretation would render such accordance with the requirements of this Act."
power nugatory to the detriment of the State." 10
     x      x      x      x      x
It is' in this context that we rule that Section 37 "SEC. 13. Under the conditions set forth in this Act
there may be admitted into the Philippines immigrants,
(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940 is not
termed 'quota immigrants' not in excess of fifty (50) of
constitutionally proscribed. any one nationality or without nationality for any one
3. A sequel to the questions just discussed is calendar year, except that the following immigrants,
the second error set forth in the government's termed 'nonquota immigrants,' may be admitted
brief. The Solicitor General balks at the lower without regard to such numerical limitations.
court's ruling that petitioner Chan Sau Wah. is The corresponding Philippine Consular
entitled to permanent residence in the Philippines representative abroad shall investigate and certify the
without first complying with the requirements of eligibility of a quota immigrant previous to his
admission into the Philippines. Qualified and desirable
aliens who are in the Philippines under temporary stay without first departing from the country and
may be admitted within the quota, subject to the complying with the requirements of Section 9 of
provisions of the last paragraph of section 9 of this Act. the Immigration Act. 11

_______________
1. (a)The wife or the husband or the unmarried
child under twenty-one years of age of a  Ong
11
Se Lun vs. Board of Immigration
Philippine citizen, if accompanying or following Commissioners, supra; Chiong Tiao Bing vs. Commissioner of
Immigration, 99
to join such citizen;
572
2. (b)A child of alien parents born during the
temporary visit abroad of the mother, the 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
mother having been previously lawfully Morano vs. Vivo
admitted into the Philippines for permanent The gravamen of petitioners' argument is that
residence, if the child is accompanying or Chan Sau Wah has, since her entry, married in
coming to join a parent and applies for Manila a native-born Filipino, Esteban Morano. It
admission within five years from the date of its will not particularly help analysis for petitioners to
birth;" appeal to family solidarity in an effort to thwart
her deportation. Chan Sau Wah, seemingly is not
Concededly, Chan Sau Wah entered the one who has a high regard for such solidarity.
Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. Proof: She left two of her children by the first
She is a nonimmigrant. Under Section 13 just marriage, both minors, in the care of neighbors in
quoted, she may therefore be admitted if she Fukien, China.
were a qualified and desirable alien and subject to Then, the wording of the statute heretofore
the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 9. adverted to is a forbidding obstacle which will
Therefore, first, she must depart voluntarily to prevent this Court from writing- into the law an
some foreign country; second, she must procure additional provision that marriage of a temporary
from the appropriate consul the proper visa; alien visitor to a Filipino would ipso facto make
and third, she must thereafter undergo her a permanent resident in his country. This is a
examination by the off icials of the Bureau of field closed to judicial action. No breadth of
Immigration at the port of entry for determination discretion is allowed us. We cannot insulate her
of her admissibility in accordance with the from the State's power of deportation.
requirements of the immigration Act. Really, it would be an easy matter for an alien
This Court in a number of cases has ruled, and woman to enter the Philippines as a temporary
consistently too, that an alien admitted as a visitor, go through a mock marriage, but actually
temporary visitor cannot change his or her status live with another man as husband and wife, and
thereby skirt the provisions of our immigration parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen.
law. AIso, a woman of undesirable character may xxx"
enter this country, ply a pernicious trade, marry a Petitioners' position is based on the assumption
Filipino, and again throw overboard Sections 9 and that Chan Sau Wah, the mother, is a Filipino
13 of the Act. Such a flanking movement, we are citizen. We have held that she is not. At best, Fu
confident, is impermissible. Yan Fun is a step-son of Esteban Morano, husband
Recently we confirmed the rule that an alien of Chan Sau Wah. A step-son is not a foreign-born
wife of a Filipino may not stay permanently' child of the step-father. The word child, we are
without first departing from the Philippines. certain, means legitimate child, not a stepchild.
Reason: Discourage entry under false pretenses. 12 We are not wanting in precedents. Thus, when the
The ruling of the trial court on this score should Constitution provides that "[t]hose whose fathers
be reversed. are citizens of the Philippines" are citizens
_______________ thereof ,  the fundamental charter intends "those"
13

to apply to legitimate children.  In another case,

14

Phil. 1020, 1022; Sy Hong vs. Commissioner of

the term "minor children" or "minor child" in
Immigration, 101 Phil. 1207, 1208; Ang It vs. Commissioner of
Immigration, 102 Phil. 532, 535-537; Ng Hin vs. Commissioner Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law
of Immigration, L-13026, March 30, 1960; Kua Suy vs, refers only to legitimate children of Filipino
Commissioner of Immigration, L-13790, October 31, 1963; Lim citizens. This Court, thru Mr. Chief Justice Roberto
Chiok vs. Vivo, L-20513, December 26, 1963; See Guan vs.
Commissioner of Immigration, L-21811, November 29, 1965.
Concepcion, there said: 15

 Co Pek vs. Vivo, L-21775, December 17, 1966.

12 "It is claimed that the phrases 'minor children' and
573 'minor child/ used in these provisions, include adopted
VOL. 20, JUNE 30, 1967 573 children. 'The argument is predicated upon the theory
that an adopted child is, for all intents and purposes, a
Morano vs. Vivo legitimate child. Whenever, the word 'children' or
4. It is petitioners' turn to point as error the 'child' is used in statutes, it is generally understood,
dismissal of the petition for mandamus and however, to refer to legitimate children, unless the
prohibition with respect to petitioner Fu Yan Fun. context of the law and its spirit indicate clearly the
Petitioners' line of thought is this: Fu Yan Fun contrary. Thus, for instance, when the Constitution
follows the citizenship of his mother. They cite provides that 'those whose fathers are citizens of the
Section 15, paragraph 3, Commonwealth. Act 473, Philippines,' and 'those whose mothers are citizens of
which says that : the Philippines' who shall elect Philippine citizenship
"A foreign-born minor child if dwelling in the 'upon reaching the age of majority,' are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the naturalization. of the Philippines (Article IV, Section 1, subdivisions [3] and
[4]) our fundamental law clearly refers
to legitimate children (Chiongbian vs. De Leon, 46 Off. Reasons there are which prevent us from giving
Gaz., 3652-3654; Serra v. Republic, L-4223, May 12, our imprimatur to this argument.
1952)." The provision requiring official approval of a
_______________
bond is merely directory. "Irregularity or entire
 Article IV, Section 1, subdivision 3, Philippine Constitution.
13 failure in this respect does not affect the validity
 Chiongbian vs. de Leon, 82 Phil. 771, 774.
14
of the bond."  The reason for the rule is found in 9
16

 Ching Leng vs. Galang, L-11432, October 27, 1958.

15
C.J., p. 26 (footnote), which reads:
574 "(a) Reason for rule.—'Statutes requiring bonds to be
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED approved by certain officials are not for the purpose of
Morano vs, Vivo protecting the obligors in the bond, but are aimed to
At any rate, Fu Yan Fun entered the Philippines as protect the public, to insure their solvency, and to
a temporary visitor. The status of a temporary create evidence of an unimpeachable character of the
visitor cannot be converted into that of a fact of their execution. When they are executed for a
legal purpose, before a proper tribunal, and are in fact
permanent resident, as we have heretofore held,
accepted and approved by the officer or body, whose
without first complying with Section 9 of the duty it was to approve them, it could serve no useful
Immigration Law. purpose of the law to hold them invalid, to release all
5. Petitioners finally aver that the lower court the obligors thereon, and to def eat every purpose of
erred in authorizing respondent Commissioner to its execution, simply because the fact of approval was
forfeit the bond filed by petitioners Chan Sau Wah not indorsed precisely as had been
and Fu Yan Fun in the amount of P4,000.00. _______________
Here is petitioners' posture. They enjoyed their 16
 9 C. J., p. 25.
stay in the Philippines upon a bond. Now they "The failure of a court or officer to approve or file an official
come to court and say that as the prescribed form bond will not affect its validity for the reason that the government
of this bond was not expressly approved by the or other official body is not responsible for the laches of its
officers." 8 Am. Jur., p. 717.
Secretary of Justice in accordance with Section 3 575
of Commonwealth Act 613, which reads— VOL. 20, JUNE 30, 1967 575
"SEC. 3. xxx He [Commissioner of Immigration] shall
issue, subject to the approval of the Department Head,
Morano vs. Vivo
such rules and regulations and prescribes such forms directed by the Legislature.' American Book Co. vs.
of bond, reports, and other papers, and shall issue Wells, 83 SW 622, 627, 26 Ky L-1159." (italics
from time to time such instruction, not inconsistent supplied)
with law, as he shall deem best calculated to carry out And another. This bond was accepted by the
the provisions of the immigration laws. x x x." that government. It had been there. The form of the
bond is void. bond here used is of long continued usage. If the
government did not question the form of the bond of Registration and other immigration
at all, then we must assume that it counted with papers, upon the payment of proper dues;
the Secretary's approval. For the presumption is and decclaring preliminary injunction with
that official duty has been legally performed. respect to her permanent, prohibiting the
Surely enough, equitable considerations will respondent, his representatives or
stop petitioners from pleading invalidity of the subordinates from arresting and/or
bond. They offered that bond to enable them to deporting said petitioner;"
enter and stay in this country. They enjoyed
benefits therefrom. They cannot, "in law and good is hereby reversed; and, in consequence—
conscience, be allowed to reap the fruits" of that The petition for mandamus and prohibition with
bond, and then jettison the same. They are respect to petitioner Chan Sau Wah is hereby
"precluded from attacking the validity" of such denied; and the judgment declaring her a citizen
bond.17
of the Philippines, directing respondent to cancel
Actually, to petitioners the bond was good while her Alien Certificate of Registration
they sought entry into the Philippines; they of f _______________
ered it as security for the undertaking; that they
 De Borja Vda. de Torres vs. Encarnacion, 89 Phil. 678, 681.
17

"will actually depart from the Philippines" when 576

their term of stay expires. Now that the bond is 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
being confiscated because they overstayed, they
Bautista vs. Court of Appeals
make an about-f ace and say that such bond is
and other immigration papers, and declaring the
null and void. They shall not profit from this
preliminary injunction with respect to her
inconsistent position. Their bond should be
permanent, are all hereby set aside; and
confiscated.
(2) In all other respects, the decision appealed
Conformably to the foregoing, the judgment
from is hereby affirmed.
under review is hereby modified as follows:
No costs. So ordered.
     Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, 
1.(1)The portion thereof which reads:
Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.
     Dizon, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
1."(a.)Granting this petition for Mandamus
and Prohibition with respect to petitioner DlZON, J.: concurring.
CHAN SAU WAH, who is hereby declared a
citizen of the Philippines; ordering the I concur (in the result) with the majority opinion
respondent to cancel her Alien Certificate penned by Mr. Justice Conrado Sanchez, for the
reason that, as stated therein,—"in the additional
stipulation of facts of July 3, 1963, petitioners
admit that Chan Sau Wah is not possessed of all
the qualifications required by the Naturalization
Law."
Judgment affirmed.
Note.—As to citizenship of an alien woman
married to a Filipino citizen, see Burca vs.
Republic, L-24252, Jan. 30, 1967, 19 Supreme
Court Reports Annotated 186.

——oOo——