GR L 6784; (March, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6784; March 12, 1954
NATIVIDAD MIRANDA, LUIS MIRANDA, PEDRO MIRANDA, RAMON MIRANDA and FAUSTINO MIRANDA, petitioners, vs. DEPORTATION BOARD, respondent.
FACTS
On November 17, 1952, petitioners were charged before the Deportation Board with entering the Philippines through fraud and misrepresentation. The charge alleged that, being children of Chinese parents, they misrepresented themselves as the legitimate children of a Filipino citizen, Faustino Miranda, and a woman named Puy Siok, thereby gaining entry into the country. Due to these charges, petitioners were arrested and detained at the Bureau of Immigration’s detention station, though they were later released upon posting a bond of P1,000 each. On June 18, 1953, petitioners filed a motion to quash the case, alleging they are Filipino citizens and that the Deportation Board therefore lacked jurisdiction over them. The Board denied the motion and set the case for hearing on July 7, 1953, prompting petitioners to file the present petition for habeas corpus seeking to restrain the Board from hearing the case and to secure their release.
ISSUE
Whether the Deportation Board loses jurisdiction over a deportation case merely because the persons charged allege that they are Filipino citizens.
RULING
No. The mere plea of citizenship by the persons charged does not automatically divest the Deportation Board of its jurisdiction. While the Board’s jurisdiction to deport exists only over aliens, it has the necessary and inherent power to receive evidence and determine in the first instance whether the persons charged are indeed aliens or Filipino citizens. Petitioners have the duty to make a non-frivolous showing and prove by sufficient evidence that they are Filipino citizens. The Court cited the precedent in Llanco vs. The Deportation Board, stating that the Board should proceed with the case to its termination. If it finds the charges of undesirability unfounded, the case ends. If it finds the persons undesirable, they can appeal, and if the appeal fails, it would then be the time to consider a further judicial determination on the claim of citizenship via habeas corpus. The petition was denied, the preliminary injunction dissolved, and costs were assessed against petitioners.