G.R. No. L-21425 September 15, 1972
JOSE TIU, ONG WAN KING @ WONG YUEN KING, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. MARTINIANO VIVO, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Ong Wan King, the wife of Jose Tiu, and her two minor children arrived in the Philippines on October 29, 1960, and were admitted as temporary visitors. Following a favorable decree on February 21, 1961, granting Jose Tiu’s application for naturalization, the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, pursuant to a cabinet policy, approved the change of the petitioners’ status to special non-immigrants, authorizing their stay until February 21, 1963. However, on August 30, 1962, the respondent Acting Commissioner of Immigration, following a repudiation of the prior policy by new cabinet secretaries, terminated their authorized stay and ordered them to leave within seven days, threatening arrest and deportation.
This directive prompted the petitioners to file a petition for prohibition before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower court granted the petition on May 28, 1963, enjoining the Commissioner from arresting or deporting the petitioners until two years from the date of Jose Tiu’s naturalization decree. The court also declared Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, which empowered the Commissioner to issue arrest warrants for deportable aliens, unconstitutional.

ISSUE

The principal issues were whether the trial court erred in: (1) declaring that an alien woman married to a Filipino citizen automatically acquires his citizenship; (2) not declaring the petitioners’ authorized stay terminated; and (3) declaring Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and academic. During the pendency of the appeal, supervening events and a controlling precedent rendered a resolution of the substantive issues unnecessary. The Court noted that Ong Wan King had voluntarily departed the Philippines on March 23, 1966, and was subsequently re-admitted as a non-quota immigrant on March 30, 1966. Her two minor children had also been recognized as Filipino citizens by the Bureau of Immigration. Furthermore, Jose Tiu had taken his oath of allegiance and received his certificate of naturalization on February 17, 1964.
Crucially, the Court cited its ruling in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, which held that an alien woman marrying a Filipino, provided she is not disqualified, becomes ipso facto a Filipina, and that immigration formalities for permanent admission do not apply to those who legitimately acquire Filipino citizenship after entry as temporary visitors. As a necessary consequence of Jose Tiu’s naturalization, his wife (if not disqualified) and his minor children residing in the Philippines at the time acquired Filipino citizenship, bestowing upon them the right to reside in the country. Any challenge to the validity of this citizenship acquisition must be resolved in a separate appropriate proceeding.
Regarding the constitutional issue, the Court clarified that its established jurisprudence confines the Immigration Commissioner’s power to issue arrest warrants only to those necessary for executing a final deportation order, which is not violative of the Constitution. Since the petitioners had acquired a right to stay and the specific threat of deportation had been overtaken by events, the case was dismissed for being moot.