Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

DIGEST 1

Facts: On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by
the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural born
mother, Marciana Gatchalian.

On June 27, 1961, William Gatchalian, then a twelve-year old minor, arrived in Manila from Hongkong
together with Gloria, Francisco and Johnson Gatchalian. They had with them Certificate of
Registration and Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram
bearing the signature of the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Felixberto Serrano, and sought
admission as Filipino citizens. After investigation, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a
decision dated July 5, 1961, admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens and
was issued Identification Certificates.

On January 24, 1962, the then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all
decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners on appeal or on review
motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry. The same memorandum directed the Board
of Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a
Philippine citizen. Among those cases was that of William and others.On July 6, 1962, the new Board
of Commissioners, reversed the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry and ordered the exclusion of,
among others, respondent Gatchalian.

Sometime in 1973, respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by the July 6, 1961 warrant
of exclusion, filed a motion for re-hearing with the Board of Special Inquiry where the deportation
case against them was assigned.

On March 15, 1973, Acting Commissioner Nituda issued an order reaffirming the July 6, 1961 decision
of the Board of Special Inquiry thereby admitting respondent Gatchalian as a Filipino citizen and
recalled the warrant of arrest issued against him.

On June 7, 1990, the acting director of the National Bureau of Investigation wrote the Secretary of
Justice recommending that the respondent Gatchalian along with the other applicants covered by the
warrant of exclusion be charged with violation against the Immigration Act of 1940.

On August 1, 1990, the Secretary of Justice indorsed the recommendation of the NBI to the
Commissioner of Immigration for investigation and immediate action.

On August 15, 1990, petitioner Domingo of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation issued a
mission order commanding the arrest of respondent William Gatchalian. The latter appeared before
Commissioner Domingo on August 20, 1990 and was released on the same day upon posting
P200,000.00 cash bond.

On August 29, 1990, William Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunction
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, presided by respondent Judge dela Rosa. On September 4,
1990, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that respondent judge has no jurisdiction
over the Board of Commissioners and/or the Board of Special Inquiry.

On September 6, 1990, respondent’s wife and minor children filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela for injunction with writ of preliminary injunction. That petitioners acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in the institution of deportation proceedings against William. Respondent
Capulong issued the questioned temporary restraining order restraining petitioners from continuing
with the deportation proceedings against William Gatchalian.

Issue:

Whether or not William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen.

Held: The very basis of the Board of Commissioners in reversing the decision of the Board of Special
Inquiry was due to a forged cablegram by the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, which was
dispatched to the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong authorizing the registration of applicants as P.I.
citizens.

In matters of implementing the Immigration Act insofar as deportation of aliens are concerned, the
Commissioner of Immigration may issue warrants of arrest only after a determination by the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien. A warrant
of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for the purpose of investigation only, as in the
case at bar, is null and void for being unconstitutional.

Philippine law, following lex loci celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid
where celebrated is valid everywhere. Having declared the assailed marriages as valid, respondent
William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father Francisco, a Filipino, as a legitimate child of the
latter. Francisco, in turn, is likewise a Filipino being the legitimate child of Santiago Gatchalian who is
admittedly a Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration
in an order dated July 12, 1960.

Finally, respondent William Gatchalian belongs to the class of Filipino citizens contemplated under
Section 1, Article IV of the Consititution.

DIGEST 2

FACTS: On July 6, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by
the BOI as a native born Filipino citizen. Santiago Gatchalian testified that he has 5 children.

On June 27, 1961, William Gatchalian then a twelve year old minor arrived in Manila and sought
admission as Filipino citizen which was eventually granted by the board of special inquiry. However,
the Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum setting aside all decisions and directed the Board of
Commissions to review all cases where entry was allowed among which was that of William
Gatchalian.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Gatchalian in China is valid in accordance with Philippine law.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of the evidence to the contrary foreign laws
on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. This is known as
Processual Presumption. In this case, there being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there
arises a presumption that it is the same of that of Philippine law the said marriage then is declared
valid. Therefore, William Gatchalian following the citizenship of his father is a Filipino citizen.
DIGEST 3

Facts: On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by
the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of natural mother
Mariana Gatchalian. On June 27, 1961, Willian, then twelve years old, arrives in Manila from
Hongkong together with a daughter and a son of Santiago. They had with them certificate of
registration and identity issued by the Philippine consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram
bearing the signature of the secretary of foreign affairs, Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as
Filipino citizens.

On July 6, 1961, the board of special inquiry admitted the Gatchalians as Filipino citizens and issued
an identification certificate to William. The boarf of commissioners waws directed by the Secretary of
Justice to Review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a Filipino
citizen such included the case of William. As a result of the decision of the board of special inquiry
which recommended for the reversal of the decision of the Board of Commissioners. Acting
commissioner issued an order affirming the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry.

On August 15, 1990, the Commission on Immigration and Deportatiion ordered the arrest of William
and was released upon posting P 200,000 cash bond. Thus on the 29thof the same month, he filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of Manila. A motion to dismiss was filed but
denied.

Issue: Whether or not William Gatchalian is to be declared as a Filipino citizen

Held: William Gatchalian is declared as a Filipino Citizen. Having declared the assailed marriage as
valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father, a Filipino as legitimate child.
Respondent belongs to a class of Filipinos who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the constitution.