G.R. No. L-21426 October 22, 1975
ANG NGO CHIONG, SZE SOOK YUEN alias SY SIOK GAN, ANG UN BON and ANG CHO SIT, the last two herein represented by ANG NGO CHIONG, petitioners-appellees, vs. EMILIO GALANG, in his capacity as Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Ang Ngo Chiong, a Chinese resident, filed a petition for naturalization. His wife, Sze Sook Yuen, and their two children entered the Philippines as temporary visitors. Their authorized stay expired on August 8, 1961, and the Commissioner of Immigration ordered their departure. Prior to this date, the family filed a prohibition suit to prevent their arrest and deportation. During the pendency of this case, Ang Ngo Chiong’s naturalization petition was granted, and he took his oath of allegiance on December 5, 1964. The lower court granted the writ of prohibition, enjoining the Commissioner from deporting Sze Sook Yuen and the children.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Sze Sook Yuen and her children acquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of Ang Ngo Chiong’s naturalization, thereby rendering them immune from deportation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that Sze Sook Yuen and her children are deemed Philippine citizens under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473). The legal logic is clear and settled: an alien woman married to a naturalized Filipino citizen ipso facto acquires Philippine citizenship upon her husband’s taking of the oath, provided she lacks any disqualifications under Section 4 of the same law. Similarly, foreign-born minor children dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the parent’s naturalization automatically become citizens. Since Ang Ngo Chiong had been naturalized, his wife and children, who were in the Philippines, derived citizenship from him by operation of law. Consequently, the Commissioner of Immigration lost the authority to deport them, as they are no longer considered aliens. The Court clarified that while the lower court erroneously declared Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act unconstitutional and questioned the bond form’s legality, these errors were immaterial. The citizenship derivation provided a sufficient and correct legal basis for the prohibition. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Commissioner’s warrant authority for executing final deportation orders but noted it was inapplicable here. The petitioners were directed to seek cancellation of their alien certificates based on the Bureau of Immigration’s findings to formalize their status.