G.R. No. L-21775 December 17, 1966
CO PEK, LIM WUN CHEE alias LIM UN CHU, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. HON. MARTIANO VIVO, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

On November 28, 1960, Lim Wun Chee and her five minor children applied for a non-immigrant visa at the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong to visit Co Pek, her husband and their father, a permanent resident in Manila. In her supporting affidavit, Lim Wun Chee swore they would never apply for a change from their temporary visitor status and would stay only for three months. A temporary visitor’s visa was issued after Co Pek posted a P30,000 cash bond. They arrived on December 16, 1960. Co Pek’s petition for naturalization had been filed earlier, on February 16, 1960, and was granted on February 8, 1961. The stay of his wife and children was later extended until February 8, 1963 under a Cabinet Policy. When this policy was nullified in January 1962, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered them to leave by September 9, 1962. Co Pek, having taken his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen on April 30, 1962, filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin their arrest, deportation, and the confiscation of the bond. The lower court granted the petition, declaring Lim Wun Chee and her children citizens by virtue of Co Pek’s naturalization, and ordered the cancellation of their alien papers and the refund of the bond. The Commissioner of Immigration appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Lim Wun Chee and her foreign-born minor children automatically acquired Philippine citizenship as a consequence of Co Pek’s naturalization.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision.
1. For a wife to automatically acquire citizenship under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, she must not only be free from disqualifications but must also possess all qualifications for naturalization. There was no proof that Lim Wun Chee possessed all such qualifications; therefore, her husband’s naturalization did not ipso facto make her a citizen.
2. The entry of Lim Wun Chee and her children was based on a fraudulent misrepresentation. They gained entry as temporary visitors under a sworn affidavit promising not to change their status, but their petition in the prohibition case admitted their presence was to fulfill the naturalization law’s requirement for Co Pek’s minor children to be studying in the Philippines. This constituted a fraud on the immigration authorities, disqualifying them from claiming favorable treatment, including a change of status.
3. Regarding the minor children, Section 15 requires that a foreign-born minor child be “dwelling in the Philippines” at the time of the parent’s naturalization to automatically become a citizen. The Court held that “dwelling” means domicile, not mere physical presence. Their presence, obtained through a fraudulent visa, could not constitute the lawful domicile required by law.
The Court found it necessary to decide the case on its merits despite a subsequent manifestation that Lim Wun Chee had re-entered as a quota immigrant and the bond had been refunded, to serve the ends of justice and state welfare. The decision of the lower court was set aside.