BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS vs. HON.

JOSELITO DELA ROSA

G.R. NOS. 95122-23
31 May 1991
Bidin

FACTS
July 1960 - Santiago Gatchalian, an illegitimate child to a Chinese father (Pablo
Pacheco) and a Filipino mother (Mariana Gatchalian), was recognized as a native
born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his mother. He also declared that
he has 5 children with his Chinese wife Chu Gin Tee. One of them was Francisco,
William Gatchalians father.
27 June 1961 12-year old William, together with his father Francisco, arrived in
Manila from Hong Kong. They had with them certificates of Registration and
Identity issued by the Philippine consulate in Hong Kong and they sought
admission as Filipino citizens.
6 July 1961 Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 (BSI1) admitted William and his
companions as Filipino citizens.
24 January 1962 Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside
all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners
(BOC) on appeal or on review. The Secretary of Justice asked the BOC to review
all the cases where entry was allowed on the grounds of the entrant being a Filipino
citizen. Among those cases was that of William.
6 July 1962 The BOC reversed the initial decision of the BSI1 and ordered the
exclusion of William Gatchalian. A warrant of exclusion was issued alleging that
the BOC decision was final and executory.
1973 Respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by the July 6, 1962
filed a motion for re-hearing with the BSI.
15 March 1973 Acting Commissioner Victor Nituda issued an order reaffirming
the 6 July 1961 decision to admit Gatchalian as a Filipino citizen. The warrant of
arrest was also recalled.
7 June 1990 Acting NBI Commissioner wrote to the Secretary of Justice
recommending that William be charged with violation of the Immigration Act of
1940 (Commonwealth Act. No. 613).
15 August 1990 order to arrest Gatchalian was issued. He later was released
upon posting a Php 200,000 bond.
BOC contends that Williams arrest follows as a matter of consequence the
Warrant of Exclusion issued on 6 July 1962.
On the other hand, William argues that the Mission Order of Warrant of Arrest
does mention that it is issued pursuant to a final order of deportation or warrant
of exclusion.
ISSUES
W/N William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen based on the validity of his parents
marriage abroad. (i.e. w/n he has been an alien the whole time he has been
residing in the Philippines)
W/N the warrant of arrest by the Board of Commissioners and the Commission
on Immigration and Deportation was valid.
W/N the prescriptive period to deport Gatchalian, assuming he was an alien, has
elapsed.

HELD
YES. His grandfather, Santiago Gatchalian, was born of a Filipina mother,
despite being an illegitimate child. His father, Francisco Gatchalian, and he were
certified as Filipinos by the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong. However, this
was contested by the BOC after the review.

Petitioners claimed that William Gatchalian is an alien, despite the certification

signed by the Secretary of Foreign affairs and despite his having lived in the
country for 28 yrs. thereafter. They held that the state could use police power in
order to arrest and then deport him. They pointed out that both his grandfather
and his father married Chinese women in China and that no evidence was
produced regarding the authenticity nor the existence of claimed marriages.
There was no actual proof that these marriages in China were valid or even real;
and if the contrary is true, Francisco Gatchalian and William Gatchalian were
never Filipino citizens because they would have taken the citizenship of the land
(if jus soli applies in China) or the citizenship of their mothers, Chinese (if jus
sanguinis applies in China). The lack of evidence of the validity of these
marriages in China is the focal point of the petitioners arguments.

The court holds that it is not the respondents fault that they werent able to
produce any documentation regarding the validity of the marriages in China. The
Citizenship Investigations Board, upon asking of proof of said marriages, were
satisfied with the testimony of Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or
destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. Much more can this
deficiency be blamed on William Gatchalian, who was only a minor during his
migration to the Philippines. Santiago and Francisco Gatchalians testimonies
were admissible in evidence as declarations regarding their familys reputation.
Any doubt to these declarations is cast aside by Art. 226, which leans toward the
validity of the marriage. Therefore, the testimonies are considered competent
proof. Therefore, the marriages are considered valid and Francisco follows the
nationality of his father, as a legitimate child of the latter.
 NO. Pursuant to Sec. 37 (a) of Commonwealth Act 613, a warrant of arrest may
only be issued by the Bureau of Immigration (then the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation) if the sole purpose of the arrest is to execute a final
order of deportation.

YES. BOCs argument that the arrest came 28 years after the alleged cause of
deportation arose cannot be sustained because section 37 (b) of Commonwealth
Act 613 states that deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in the
deportation proceedings is made within five (5) years after the cause of deportation
arises. In this case, the alleged cause of action and deportation against William
arose in 1962. However, the warrant of arrest was issued only on August 15, 1990
28 long years after. It is clear that petitioners' cause of action has already
prescribed.

Petition of BOC to pursue the arrest and deportation of Gatchalian is DISMISSED.

DISSENTING OPINIONS
Feliciano, J. Dissenting:
Respondent William Gatchalians claim to Philippine citizenship rests upon
a fragile web constructed out of self-serving oral testimony, a total lack of
official documentation, of negative facts and of invocation of presumptions
without proof of essential factual premises.
The premises of his citizenship are open to very serious doubt.
The certification of their citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration does not
close the issue for investigation by the Supreme Court. The citizenship of
their line must be examined more closely.

DOCTRINES and PROVISIONS:

Art. 71 of the Civil Code (now Art. 26 of Family Code) lex loci celebrationis a
marriage formally valid where celebrated is valid everywhere.
- all marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with
the laws in force in the country where they performed, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country
Art 220 of the Civil Code
 - in case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family.
Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of
marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of the
children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of
parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of
the family in case of unlawful aggression.
Res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship if the claim to citizenship is
not satisfactorily proven.
In order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the
following must be present:
(1) A persons citizenship must not be raised as material evidence in a controversy
where said person is a party;
(2) The Solicitor General or his authorized representatives or citizenship took active
part in the resolution thereof; and
(3) The finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of
investigation only, as in the case at bar, is null and void for being unconstitutional.
Deportation shall not be affected unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is
made within 5 years after the cause of deportation arises.
Whether or not the parents were admitted into the country and their children
accepted as Filipino citizens illegally, it is too late to deport the children after having
allowed the mother to remain even illegally.