G.R. No. L-7785 November 25, 1955
CHANG YUNG FA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. HONORABLE ROBERTO A. GIANZON, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Justice and HONORABLE VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, as Commissioner of Immigration, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Chang Yung Fa, et al., were admitted to the Philippines on November 11, 1949, as immigrants under Section 13(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940) on the basis of pre-arranged employment. Their admission was expressly conditioned on their stay being limited to two years. On June 12, 1950, Republic Act No. 503 amended the Immigration Act, reclassifying aliens with pre-arranged employment from immigrants to non-immigrants. On November 21, 1952, the Secretary of Justice issued Opinion No. 314, s. 1952, holding the two-year limitation imposed on petitioners was valid and that they would be subject to deportation upon its expiration. Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment to challenge the Commissioner of Immigration’s right to impose such a limitation and to assail the validity of the Secretary’s opinion. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the petition, ruling petitioners had no right to stay longer and should be deported. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Commissioner of Immigration had the right to limit the petitioners’ period of stay as immigrants to two years, and whether Opinion No. 314, s. 1952, of the Secretary of Justice on the matter is valid and constitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling against the petitioners. The Court held that the term “immigrant” as defined in Section 50(j) of Commonwealth Act No. 613 (“any alien departing from any place outside the Philippines destined for the Philippines, other than a non-immigrant”) is not restricted to aliens coming for permanent residence but includes those coming for temporary purposes. The law grants broad power and discretion to the Commissioner of Immigration regarding the admission of aliens. The classification of immigrants into “quota” and “non-quota” under Section 13 relates to numerical limits, not the duration of residence. The Court cited the U.S. case of Karnuth vs. U.S., which interpreted a similar statutory definition. Furthermore, under Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 613 , the Commissioner has broad authority, including the power to deny admission entirely on grounds of public interest; thus, imposing a less onerous condition like a time limitation is within his power. The Court also found that petitioners, having consented to their admission under the two-year condition, were estopped from challenging it. The explanatory note to the amendatory Republic Act No. 503 , which indicated a legislative impression that pre-arranged employment immigrants were entitled to permanent residence, could not control the interpretation of the original Commonwealth Act. Therefore, the imposition of the condition was valid, and Opinion No. 314 was upheld.