G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS and COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, petitioners, vs. BEATO GO CALLANO, MANUEL GO CALLANO, GONZALO GO CALLANO, JULIO GO CALLANO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, Beato, Manuel, Gonzalo, and Julio Go Callano, are the illegitimate children of Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen, and Go Chiao Lin, a Chinese citizen. They were born in the Philippines between 1936 and 1945. In 1946, the family went to Amoy, China, where Go Chiao Lin died. Emilia returned to the Philippines in 1948, leaving her minor children in China. In 1961, the respondents applied for entry into the Philippines as Filipino citizens at the Philippine Consulate General in Hong Kong. The Consulate received a cable authorization (No. 2230-V) from the Department of Foreign Affairs to investigate their claim and, if satisfied, to issue documentation. After investigation, the Consulate issued certificates of registration and identity, and the respondents arrived in Manila on December 26, 1961. An immigration inspector referred their case to the Board of Special Inquiry, which, after investigation, admitted them as Filipino citizens on January 4, 1962.
Subsequently, on July 13, 1962, the Department of Foreign Affairs informed the Commissioner of Immigration that the signature of former Secretary Felixberto M. Serrano on the cable authorization was not authentic, declared the document null and void, and cancelled the respondents’ documentation, all without prior notice or hearing. On August 21, 1962, the Board of Immigration Commissioners, without prior notice and hearing, issued an order reversing the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision, ordering the respondents’ exclusion as aliens not properly documented, and a warrant of exclusion was issued. The respondents filed an action for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain their deportation, claiming they were Filipino citizens and that the order violated due process. The trial court found them to be illegitimate children of a Filipino mother but dismissed the case, holding they had become Chinese citizens due to their prolonged stay in China and recognition by their Chinese father. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the private respondents lost their Philippine citizenship and acquired Chinese citizenship due to their prolonged stay in China and recognition by their Chinese father.
2. Whether the cable authorization was a forgery, rendering all subsequent proceedings void and warranting the respondents’ deportation.
3. Whether the private respondents are barred from questioning the Board of Immigration Commissioners’ decision and the warrant of exclusion for failure to appeal to the Secretary of Justice.

RULING

1. The private respondents did not lose their Philippine citizenship. As illegitimate children of a Filipino mother, they were Philippine citizens at birth under the Philippine Constitution and laws. Prolonged stay in a foreign country does not, by itself, constitute renunciation of citizenship; renunciation must be express and explicit. All respondents were minors when taken to China in 1946 and lacked legal capacity to renounce their citizenship. Upon reaching majority, Beato Go Callano applied for registration as a Philippine citizen, indicating an intent to retain his status. Recognition by their Chinese father did not automatically confer Chinese citizenship upon them under Philippine law.
2. The forgery of the cable authorization was not satisfactorily proven by the government. The handwriting expert’s testimony was insufficient because the genuineness of the specimen signatures used for comparison was not competently established, and variations existed even among the specimen signatures. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held that if the respondents are Filipino citizens, they are entitled to remain in the Philippines regardless of the manner of their entry.
3. The private respondents are not barred from questioning the decision and warrant. The orders were issued without prior notice and hearing, in violation of due process. Decisions of the Board of Immigration Commissioners do not constitute res judicata, and courts may grant relief if the Board abused its powers, committed serious legal errors, or denied a fair hearing. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.