G.R. No. L-21728, December 27, 1963
HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, as Commissioner of Immigration, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Chua Giok King and her three minor children, the wife and children of Chinese resident Lim Chiao Cun, entered the Philippines on June 25, 1960, as temporary visitors with an authorized stay until September 25, 1960. After several extensions, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of Justice, acting on a cabinet resolution, approved a change in their category to “special non-immigrants” and extended their stay up to June 9, 1963. This extension was granted on the basis that Lim Chiao Cun’s petition for naturalization had been granted by a court on June 9, 1961, though his citizenship was not yet final. A new administration later ruled that the power to extend stays rested with the Commissioner of Immigration, who then issued Circular No. V-101 abrogating all such extensions. The family sued to enjoin the Commissioner from enforcing the circular, and the lower court issued a preliminary injunction.
After the extended stay period expired on June 9, 1963, the Commissioner moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing the visitors’ authorized stay had lapsed. The respondent judge refused to lift the injunction. The Commissioner then filed this certiorari proceeding, alleging the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction after the authorized stay of the alien visitors had expired.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, annulling the preliminary injunction and the order refusing to dissolve it. The Court held that the extension granted by the Secretaries was explicit and limited, authorizing stay only until June 9, 1963. The condition requiring the aliens to secure re-entry permits to Hong Kong valid beyond this date confirmed the fixed terminal point of their authorized sojourn. An extension of stay for an alien is a matter of grace, not of right, and must be strictly construed. Since it was undisputed that the authorized period had expired without further authorization, the aliens had no right to remain. The lower court’s refusal to allow the Commissioner to proceed with their expulsion after June 9, 1963, was contrary to law and constituted an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The issue of bond confiscation could be litigated separately and did not justify restraining the enforcement of the immigration laws regarding the aliens’ departure.