G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970
NGO DY, in behalf of his wife NGO SIU TSE and his children NGO MING SEK and NGO MEE MEE, both minors, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from a petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by Ngo Dy to prevent the Commissioner of Immigration from arresting and expelling his wife and two foreign-born minor children as overstaying temporary visitors. During the pendency of the case in the Court of First Instance, Ngo Dy became a naturalized Filipino citizen on January 3, 1964. The lower court dismissed the petition regarding the wife, holding she did not automatically acquire citizenship, but directed the Commissioner to allow her an opportunity to prove her qualifications for naturalization. It granted the petition regarding the minor children, making permanent the injunction against their expulsion, opining they ipso facto became Filipino citizens under the Revised Naturalization Law. Both parties appealed. Pending appeal, the wife left and re-entered the Philippines, and was documented as a permanent resident on May 15, 1966. The minor children also left and re-entered, and were admitted as Filipino citizens by the Board of Special Inquiry on July 13, 1967, a decision confirmed by the Board of Commissioners on August 3, 1967. Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner, initially interposed no objection to dismissal subject to conditions, including that the admissions retroactively cure the overstaying and that the children should not be considered Filipino citizens due to not “lawfully dwelling” in the country at the time of petitioner’s naturalization, without prejudice to possible cancellation of petitioner’s naturalization. The Solicitor General later clarified that the admissions constituted a waiver of the overstaying grounds for exclusion, but maintained the factual point about the children not “lawfully dwelling” in the Philippines remained.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal and the original case have become moot and academic due to the subsequent admission of petitioner’s wife as a permanent resident and his minor children as Filipino citizens by the respondent Commissioner of Immigration.

RULING

Yes, the case is dismissed for being moot. The Court found that the subsequent actions of the Commissioner and his Boards—granting readmission and new status to the wife and children after the lower court’s decision and pending appeal—were never involved or placed in issue in the original case below. The original case solely concerned their expulsion as overstaying temporary visitors. This issue became moot upon their departure from and readmission to the Philippines under a completely new status. Their readmission upon proper documentation is a new matter not litigated in the lower court. The Solicitor General acknowledged that the Commissioner waived the overstaying grounds for exclusion. The question of the children’s citizenship status upon readmission cannot be resolved in this case but must be threshed out in the appropriate proceeding. Consequently, the issues involved have become moot, and both the appeal and the original case are dismissed.