G.R. No. L-5300 October 30, 1953
Lam Shee, petitioner-appellant, vs. Honorable Jose P. Bengzon, Acting Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

In 1936, petitioner Lam Shee entered the Philippines as the wife of a resident Chinese merchant, Ham E, and was issued a landing certificate of residence. She brought her second child but left her oldest son, minor Mah Shu Fong, in China. In 1947, Mah Shu Fong, then 17, arrived with travel papers bearing a visa from the Philippine Vice-Consul in Hongkong. After investigation by the Board of Special Inquiry, he was allowed to land as a preference quota immigrant and issued an immigrant certificate of residence. However, in 1949, a warrant for his arrest was issued on the ground that at the time of his entry, his mother Lam Shee was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. An investigation revealed that Lam Shee had gained entry by misrepresenting herself as the wife of Ham E, when in fact she was the wife of another Chinese merchant, Mah Sek. Based on this, the Board of Commissioners found the charge well-founded and ordered the minor’s deportation, leading to the habeas corpus petition.

ISSUE

Whether minor Mah Shu Fong is subject to deportation on the ground that he “was not lawfully admissible at the time of entry” under Section 37(a), paragraph 2, of the Philippine Immigration Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 613 ), due to his mother’s fraudulent entry.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and granted the petition, ordering the release of Mah Shu Fong. The Court acknowledged that the minor’s admission was based on his mother’s fraudulent entry, which initially made him not lawfully admissible. However, it emphasized that Lam Shee herself had voluntarily disclosed the irregularity during the investigation for her son’s landing in 1947, and the immigration officials, aware of this and considering she was married to another resident merchant with substantial business, still admitted the minor. The Court found it anomalous that deportation proceedings were initiated two years later. Crucially, Lam Shee could no longer be deported because more than five years had elapsed from her admission, allowing the prescriptive period to lapse. Deporting the minor would unjustly separate him from his mother through no fault of his own, leaving him without family support and protection. For reasons of equity, the Court resolved the situation in favor of the minor, preventing his deportation.