CHUA HIONG v.

DEPORTATION BOARD - A citizen has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a
Prohibition | 19 March 1955 | J. Labrador
Nature of Case: Petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus
Digest maker: Aganon
SUMMARY: Deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioner Chua Hiong for
allegedly securing the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration thru fraud (claimed
to be son of Filipino mother, when he was a child of a Chinese woman). He then filed the
current petition claiming that Deportation Board has no jurisdiction and that his citizenship
must first be determined in the court. SC agreed.
DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the Deportation Board depends on the alienage of the
respondent in the deportation proceedings. If the respondent claims to be a citizen or
conclusively shown to be such, he has right to resort to the courts for his protection, either
by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition. When the evidence is not conclusive on either
side, question of alienage or citizenship of respondent shall be decided first in a judicial
proceeding, thereby suspending the administrative proceedings in the meantime that the
alienage or citizenship is being finally determined, provided that there is substantial
evidence supporting claim of citizenship.
writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition. The legal basis of the prohibition is absence of
jurisdictional fact, alienage.
- However, when the evidence is not conclusive on either side, question of alienage or
citizenship of respondent shall be decided first in a judicial proceeding, thereby suspending
the administrative proceedings in the meantime that the alienage or citizenship is being
finally determined In the courts. Judicial determination only applies if there is a substantial
evidence supporting claim of citizenship.
- In this case, the Court held that evidence is neither decisively conclusive in favor of
petitioner's Filipino citizenship, nor decisively conclusive against said claim.
- It was also found that petitioner has substantial evidence to afford judicial determination.
In fact, the Executive department saw it proper that petitioner’s citizenship be
determined in a judicial proceeding (criminal action for violation of Alien Registration
Act).
RULING: Preliminary injunction issued in this case continue subject to the results of the
aforesaid criminal action against the petitioner

FACTS:
1. Deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioner Chua Hiong for allegedly
securing the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration through fraud and
misrepresentation.
2. Specifically, it was alleged that he claimed to be an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother
when he was in fact a legitimate cild of a Chinese woman, and through this, he was able to
vote and acquire real estate and lumber concessions.
3. Upon filing a bond for release, petitioner filed motion to quash alleging that respondent’s
jurisdiction to deport only exists with respect to alien, and that he was a Filipino citizen as
declared by Secretary of Labor. This was denied.
4. Petitioner then filed the current petition on the ground that his arrest was made without
jurisdiction.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the deportation proceedings shall proceed. — NO
- The jurisdiction of the Deportation Board depends on the alienage of the respondent in the
deportation proceedings. If the respondent claims to be a citizen or conclusively shown to be
such, Board lacks jurisdiction and its proceedings are null and void ab initio.