G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970
THE SPOUSES, JOSE YAP JOAQUIN and LAM SOK KAM, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. EMILIO L. GALANG, THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Lam Sok Kam, a Portuguese woman, applied for and was admitted to the Philippines on April 19, 1958, as a temporary visitor with a stay authorized until May 18, 1958. Her stay was later extended to November 17, 1958. On October 17, 1958, she married Filipino citizen Jose Yap Joaquin. Four days later, she applied for cancellation of her alien registry, claiming acquisition of Philippine citizenship by marriage. This was granted by an Associate Commissioner of Immigration on October 21, 1958. Subsequently, Immigration Commissioner Emilio L. Galang discovered that Lam Sok Kam had presented a defective and irregular document of “Divorcio Por Muto Consentimento” from her first husband, Tan Pio, which was executed in Macau when she was already in the Philippines and lacked her signature. The Portuguese consul also stated he considered the document invalid and had not issued her a certificate of legal capacity to marry. Consequently, on January 15, 1959, Commissioner Galang revoked the previous order recognizing her citizenship, ordered her deportation, and forfeited her bond for changing residence without consent. The spouses filed a petition for prohibition against the deportation order. During the pendency of the case, two daughters were born to the couple.

ISSUE

Whether the Commissioner of Immigration has the power to determine the validity of a marriage for the purpose of deporting an alien; and whether Lam Sok Kam is deportable despite her marriage to a Filipino citizen.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance denying the petition for prohibition. The Court upheld the Commissioner of Immigration’s power to determine the validity of a marriage in deportation proceedings where such marriage is claimed as a ground for citizenship, citing Brito, et al. vs. Commissioner of Immigration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Lam Sok Kam is plainly deportable. Her marriage to a Filipino citizen did not ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and did not excuse her failure to depart upon the expiration of her authorized temporary stay on November 17, 1958. The Court found the marriage was likely entered into in bad faith to evade immigration laws, analogous to the case of De Austria vs. Conchu. The fact that she had children by her second husband was not a bar to deportation, as held in Vivo vs. Cloribel, as such laws govern private relations, not the relations between visiting aliens and the host country.