G.R. No. L-20597. November 29, 1963. LU CHOY FA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, respondent-appellee.
FACTS

Petitioners Lu Choy Fa and her minor children, Chinese nationals, applied for and were granted temporary visitor visas to the Philippines, valid initially for two months ending January 18, 1962. Their admission was secured by a cash bond filed by Ong Tai, the husband and father. Their stay was extended several times by the Commissioner of Immigration, ultimately until April 15, 1962. Prior to their entry, on December 27, 1961, the Court of First Instance had already granted Ong Tai’s petition for naturalization, a decree from which the government appealed. Seeking to remain in the Philippines pending the finality of Ong Tai’s naturalization, petitioners on April 12, 1962, tendered extension fees to cover a stay until December 27, 1963. The Commissioner refused the fees and declined to grant any further extension beyond April 15, 1962.
Petitioners then filed a suit in the Court of First Instance to prevent their arrest, confinement, deportation, and the confiscation of their bond, securing a preliminary injunction. After hearing, the trial court ruled that petitioners, having been admitted as temporary visitors for a definite period which had expired, were duty-bound to leave. It dissolved the injunction. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, admitted as temporary visitors, have a right to remain in the Philippines beyond the period authorized by the Commissioner of Immigration, based on the pending naturalization proceedings of their husband/father.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that petitioners had no right to remain. The Court reiterated established doctrine that a temporary visitor acquires no right to stay beyond the authorized period, and upon its expiration, the Commissioner has an inescapable duty to expel them. The fact that Ong Tai had been granted a naturalization decree by the Court of First Instance was immaterial. Such a decree does not automatically confer citizenship; nationality changes only after the lapse of the two-year probationary period and fulfillment of all legal conditions. Consequently, a mere naturalization decree cannot vest in the applicant’s family the right to remain beyond the terms of their visa.
The Court also rejected the invocation of a 1956 Cabinet resolution. The text of the resolution merely endorsed requests of aliens in similar situations to the Secretaries of Justice and Foreign Affairs for individual determination, without laying down a universal rule. There was no showing that these Secretaries had granted petitioners an extension beyond April 15, 1962. Furthermore, the Court noted that if petitioners’ true intent was to reside until Ong Tai’s naturalization was final, their application for a temporary visitor’s visa constituted a misrepresentation, depriving them of any claim to favorable treatment. The Court emphasized the state’s sovereign right to determine the conditions for an alien’s stay and the policy against allowing entry under false pretenses, which would compel the government to expend resources adjudicating claims for permanent residence while the alien evades departure. The preliminary injunction was improperly issued, and the Commissioner’s duty to exclude the petitioners was clear.