G.R. No. L-22257 May 25, 1977
GO YU TAK WAI, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, VIRGILIO GASTON and MARCIAL RANOLA, in their capacity as Commissioner and Associate Commissioners, respectively, composing the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Go Yu Tak Wai, a Chinese widow, arrived in Manila in November 1961 seeking admission as a returning resident. She claimed to have first arrived in the Philippines in 1930 with her late husband, a permanent resident, but left for China in 1941 and was unable to return for twenty years due to war and communist occupation. A Board of Special Inquiry investigated her application and, on March 27, 1962, rendered a decision admitting her as a returning resident despite her long absence and lack of a reentry permit.
The Board of Commissioners, acting motu proprio, reviewed this decision. On March 11, 1963, the Commissioners voted to exclude Go Yu Tak Wai, finding she had abandoned her permanent residence due to the twenty-year absence, the loss of her family business in the Philippines, and her lack of immediate relatives in the country. However, the written decision detailing this ruling, though dated March 11, 1963, was only finalized and typed on August 13, 1963. It was circulated for signatures and subsequently mailed to Go Yu Tak Wai, who received it on August 28, 1963.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of the Board of Commissioners reversing the Board of Special Inquiry’s favorable ruling was valid, considering it was promulgated after the expiration of the one-year statutory period for such review.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court declared the decision of the Board of Commissioners null and void. The legal logic hinges on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the one-year review period prescribed under Section 27(b) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 ( Commonwealth Act No. 613 ). The law states that a decision of a Board of Special Inquiry becomes final if not appealed or reviewed motu proprio by the Board of Commissioners within one year from its promulgation. In this case, the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision was promulgated on March 27, 1962. The Board of Commissioners’ act of voting on March 11, 1963, was within the one-year period. However, the written decision, which constitutes the official promulgation of the ruling, was not issued until August 1963, which was clearly beyond the statutory deadline.
The Court emphasized that for a motu proprio review to be effective, the Commissioners’ reversal must be duly put in writing and promulgated within the one-year period. This requirement is rooted in public policy and due process, ensuring a definite date of finality for immigration cases and preventing indefinite uncertainty for applicants. Allowing a decision to be promulgated months after the statutory period would render the fixed one-year period meaningless and elastic. The Court cited the precedent in Neria v. Commissioner of Immigration, which similarly invalidated a belatedly promulgated decision. Consequently, since the Commissioners’ decision was promulgated after the one-year period, the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision admitting Go Yu Tak Wai had already become final and beyond the power of the Commissioners to reverse.