G.R. No. L-16486 December 30, 1961
SHIU SHUN MAN, alias LOO BON, petitioner-appellee, vs. EMILIO L. GALANG, Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Shiu Shun Man (Loo Bon), a Chinese citizen, was admitted to the Philippines as a temporary visitor in July 1955 upon posting a P10,000 cash bond by his father, Loo Tek. His status was later changed to that of a pre-arranged employee, authorized to stay until April 30, 1957. In April 1957, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered the deportation of both Loo Bon and Loo Tek. The Bureau found that Loo Bon had willfully declared under oath in his initial investigation and in his Alien Certificate of Registration application that he was single and childless. After his status change, he applied to correct his civil status to “married,” admitting he was married in China in 1948 and had three children. Loo Tek was charged for supporting this false representation.
After the deportation order became final, a warrant was issued on July 1, 1957. Following a rehearing where the charge against Loo Tek was dismissed, the Commissioner ordered Loo Bon to leave within three days, warning of bond confiscation. The bond was subsequently forfeited. Loo Bon then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which declared the deportation warrant and bond confiscation null and void. The Commissioner appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether Loo Bon is subject to deportation for knowingly making a false statement under oath regarding his civil status; and (2) Whether the confiscation of his admission bond was lawful.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling in favor of the Commissioner of Immigration. On the deportation issue, the Court applied Section 45(f) of Commonwealth Act No. 613 (The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940), which penalizes any individual who knowingly makes a false statement under oath in an immigration matter. The Court found the record clearly established that Loo Bon, while married with children, swore he was single. His claimed belief that his Chinese marriage was unrecognized in the Philippines was not a valid excuse; his duty was to state his true status under Chinese law and let Philippine authorities determine its local effect. Evidence indicated his purpose was to simplify his visa application. Thus, he knowingly made a false statement, making him liable for deportation.
The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that an alien’s civil status is material to immigration discretion. A married alien poses a greater likelihood of later seeking to bring family into the country or remit funds abroad, impacting population control and foreign exchange regulations. This materiality justified the deportation order. Regarding the bond confiscation, the Court held it was proper as Loo Bon violated its conditions by overstaying beyond his authorized period ending April 30, 1957. His change from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee did not convert his stay to permanent; it remained temporary with a fixed expiration. The bond’s purpose under Section 40(a) of the law is to control the temporary admission of aliens, and its forfeiture upon violation is a logical consequence. The writ of prohibition was dissolved.