G.R. No. L-10760 May 17, 1957
LY GIOK HA alias WY GIOK HA, RESTITUTO LACASTA, WY HONG ENG and NGO IN, petitioners-appellees, vs. EMILIO L. GALANG, ENRIQUE ZAPANTA, MANUEL AGREGADO and VICENTE GELLA, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Ly Giok Ha, a Chinese national, entered the Philippines as a temporary visitor on May 14, 1955, with an authorized stay expiring on August 14, 1955, later extended to March 14, 1956. Her sister, Wy Hong Eng, made a cash deposit of P10,000 with the Bureau of Immigration under a “Cash Bond for Temporary Stay” to facilitate this entry. On March 8, 1956, Ly Giok Ha married Restituto Lacasta, a Filipino citizen. The next day, she informed the Commissioner of Immigration of her marriage, requested the cancellation of her alien immigration papers and the refund of the cash bond, claiming she had become a Philippine citizen by virtue of the marriage. Despite this, on March 16, 1956, Commissioner Emilio L. Galang declared the cash deposit forfeited. After his refusal to reconsider, the petitioners filed an action seeking to annul the forfeiture order and compel the refund of the P10,000. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Government appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the requests for extension of Ly Giok Ha’s temporary stay violated the conditions of the cash bond, warranting its forfeiture.
2. Whether Ly Giok Ha’s marriage to a Filipino citizen ipso facto made her a Philippine citizen, thereby excusing her failure to depart by March 14, 1956, and obligating the cancellation of the bond and refund of the deposit under Section 40(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

RULING

1. On the first issue: The Supreme Court held that the requests for extension did not constitute a violation of the bond warranting forfeiture. The bond itself, in paragraph (a), contemplated the possibility of an extension being properly allowed by the Commissioner. The granting of the extensions by competent authorities implied the requests were meritorious. Furthermore, the bond was required under Section 40(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act to regulate temporary admission, and the extension requests did not contravene this purpose. The Commissioner’s own forfeiture order cited only the failure to depart, not the requests for extension, as the reason for forfeiture.
2. On the second issue: The Supreme Court ruled that marriage to a male Filipino citizen does not automatically confer Philippine citizenship upon an alien wife. Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Naturalization Law), an alien woman married to a Philippine citizen is deemed a citizen only if she “might herself be lawfully naturalized.” This excludes those disqualified under Section 4 of the same Act (e.g., polygamists, persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, etc.). In this case, there was neither proof nor allegation in the pleadings that Ly Giok Ha did not fall under any of these disqualifications. The burden of proving her change of status rested with the petitioners, and they failed to discharge this burden. However, considering it was a case of first impression and the issue of her qualifications for naturalization was not squarely addressed in the proceedings, the Supreme Court, in the interest of equity and justice, set aside the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the parties to present evidence on whether Ly Giok Ha could be lawfully naturalized.