G.R. No. L-22354 March 31, 1965
KWOK KAM LIEN, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. THE HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioners are Chinese citizens who entered the Philippines as “temporary visitors” at various dates and were granted several extensions of stay, with their latest authorized stay having expired in August and September 1962. Some arrived with their minor children. In February 1962, five petitioners requested the President of the Philippines to allow them to invest in the country, which request was indorsed favorably by the then Acting Commissioner of Immigration, citing the socio-economic policy of the President. While this request was pending, petitioners sought further extensions of their stay. The President denied these requests in a letter dated July 31, 1962, stating there was no legal basis for indefinite extension and that foreigners could invest without prolonged residence. On August 29, 1962, respondent Commissioner of Immigration Martiniano P. Vivo issued Immigration Circular No. 101, terminating the authorized stay of all bonded alien temporary visitors who arrived in 1961 and prior years and requiring them to leave by September 19, 1962, or their expiry date if earlier. Petitioners filed a petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction in the CFI of Manila, alleging grave abuse of discretion in issuing the circular. The lower court granted a preliminary injunction, allowed petitioners to deposit extension fees with the court, and later rendered judgment ordering the respondent to register petitioners as special non-immigrants under Section 47(a)2 of the Immigration Act, authorizing them to continue operating their businesses until December 31, 1967, and making the injunction permanent. The respondent appealed.

ISSUE

1. Do petitioners have the right to stay in the Philippines after the expiration of their authorized sojourn?
2. Did respondent act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Circular No. V-101 and ordering appellees’ departure?
3. Was it proper for the trial court to order the withdrawal of the deposits of extension fees?

RULING

1. No. Petitioners do not have the right to stay after the expiration of their authorized sojourn. The Supreme Court held that the President’s directive of July 31, 1962, did not change their status from temporary visitors to special non-immigrants under Section 47(a)2 of the Immigration Act; it explicitly denied their requests for indefinite extension. Their entry as temporary visitors subjects them to deportation upon expiration of the granted period, and any claimed change in status is dubious and uncertain.
2. No. The respondent did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Commissioner of Immigration has the duty to administer immigration laws and order departure upon expiration of authorized stay. His acts were a valid exercise of jurisdiction, and no capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to grave abuse of discretion was shown.
3. No. It was not proper for the trial court to order the withdrawal of the deposits. The deposits were fees due to the government, and petitioners had no right to the money after using them to prolong their stay. The deposits were self-imposed as a condition for the injunction.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, declaring petitioners without right to stay or be considered special non-immigrants, upholding the Commissioner’s authority to order their departure, ordering petitioners to return the deposited amount of P1,700.00 to the government and pay extension fees of P10.00 per month for each month of overstay, and dissolving the injunction. Costs were imposed against petitioners.