GR L 1663; (March, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1663; March 31, 1948
FLORETINA VILLAHERMOSA, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Delfin Co, an 18-year-old born in Paniqui, Tarlac to a Chinese father (Co Suy) and a Filipino mother (Florentina Villahermosa), left the Philippines in February 1946 as a Chinese repatriate. Due to financial difficulties in China, he agreed to lead a party of 69 Chinese in a clandestine entry into the Philippines via Ilocos Sur on March 24, 1947. They were apprehended. The Commissioner of Immigration ordered his deportation to China as a Chinese citizen. After his apprehension, his mother reacquired her Philippine citizenship on April 29, 1947, by taking an oath of allegiance under Commonwealth Act No. 63 (having lost it by marriage to an alien). In a habeas corpus petition filed on Delfin’s behalf, it was contended that as a minor, Delfin’s citizenship followed his now-repatriated Filipino mother, making him a Philippine national not subject to deportation.
ISSUE
Whether Delfin Co is a Filipino citizen and therefore not subject to deportation for his unlawful entry.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the deportation order.
1. Delfin Co is not a Filipino citizen. Under Section 1, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, a child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father must, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. Delfin, being a minor, had not made that election. Thus, he remained a Chinese citizen, following the principle of jus sanguinis. His mother’s repatriation under Commonwealth Act No. 63 did not automatically confer Philippine citizenship upon him, as he had never been a Filipino citizen to begin with.
2. Even assuming he could later become a Filipino, his status at the time of entry controls for deportation purposes. He was a Chinese citizen when he illegally entered. A subsequent change in status cannot legalize an unlawful entry or defeat the government’s right to deport him for violating immigration laws. Precedents establish that an immigrant’s right to remain is determined as of the time of entry.
AI Generated by Armztrong.