G.R. No. L-18513; April 27, 1963
SY HA alias SZE SOOK HA, ETC., ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. EMILIO L. GALANG, ETC., respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Sy Ha, a Chinese citizen, and her two minor children were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors in June 1960. One month later, she married Go Hip, who had previously been declared a Filipino citizen by birth. Following this marriage, Sy Ha petitioned for the cancellation of their alien registry, claiming derivative citizenship as the wife and children of a Filipino. Associate Immigration Commissioner Felix Talabis granted this petition on July 26, 1960. However, Commissioner Emilio L. Galang, upon re-examining the administrative record, revoked Talabis’s order on December 1, 1960. Galang found that Sy Ha’s sworn visa applications indicated she was already married to a different Go Hip residing in Hongkong, with no evidence presented that this prior marriage had been legally dissolved, thus casting doubt on the validity of her subsequent marriage in Manila.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly granted the petition for mandamus to compel Commissioner Galang to recognize the order declaring petitioners as Filipino citizens.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition for mandamus. The legal logic rests on two key principles. First, the lower court improperly granted a new trial to admit evidence not previously presented in the administrative proceedings. This evidence, which could have been offered earlier, did not qualify as newly discovered. More critically, the court’s action was unfair as it overruled the Commissioner’s decision based on evidence he never had the opportunity to evaluate, undermining the administrative process. Second, and fundamentally, mandamus is an improper remedy. Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control or review an officer’s discretionary function. The Commissioner’s authority to re-examine evidence and determine citizenship claims pursuant to immigration laws is a discretionary duty involving the exercise of judgment. The court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner in such matters. Therefore, the writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the Commissioner to affirm the earlier administrative order.