Dela Rosa Case

7/25/2019 Dela Rosa Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dela-rosa-case 1/99

lawphil

Today is Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Republic of the Philippines

SUPR! "#URT

!anila

$ %&$"

'(R( $os( 9)122*23!ay 31, 1991

%#&R+ #F "#!!SS#$RS -"#!!SS#$ #$ !!'R&T#$ &$+ +P#RT&T#$.,

%#&R+ #F SP"&/ $UR, "#!!SS#$R &$+R& +( +#!$'#, &SS#"&T

"#!!SS#$R #R' ( S&R!$T#, &"T$' &SS#"&T "#!!SS#$R R'$#

R( S&$T&'#, !!%RS #F T4 %#&R+ #F SP"&/ $UR, ST&$S/&# "&$T&,

/# !&'&4#! and %$&!$ 5&/&6, petitioners,

7s(

4#$( #S/T# +/& R#S&, Presidin8 ud8e, RT" !anila, %ranch 29, 6//&! T(

'&T"4&/&$, respondents(

%#&R+ #F "#!!SS#$RS -"#!!SS#$ #$ !!'R&T#$ &$+ +P#RT&T#$.,

%#&R+ #F SP"&/ $UR, "#!!SS#$R &$+R& +( +#!$'#, &SS#"&T

"#!!SS#$R #R' ( S&R!$T#, &"T$' &SS#"&T "#!!SS#$R R'$#

R( S&$T&'#, !!%RS #F T4 %#&R+ #F SP"&/ $UR, ST&$S/&# "&$T&,

/# !&'&4#! and %$&!$ 5&/&6, petitioners,



7s(

4#$( TRST& +#$ "&PU/#$', Presidin8 ud8e, RT" %ranch 1:2, alen;uela,

!etro !anila, + 4U& T( '&T"4&/&$, S4R6$' T( '&T"4&/&$, 5$$T4 T(

'&T"4&/&$, R</#$ T( '&T"4&/&$, and 6S/ T( '&T"4&/&$, respondents(

'(R( $os( 9)=12*13!ay 31, 1991

6//&! T( '&T"4&/&$, petitioner,

7s(

%#&R+ #F "#!!SS#$RS -"#!!SS#$ #$ !!'R&T#$ &$+ +P#RT&T#$., et

al(, respondents(

The Solicitor 'eneral for petitioners(

edes>a, Saludo ? &ssociates for respondent 6illia> 'atchalian(

"er7o and Tanay /aw #@ce for respondent T(+( "apulon8, +(4(T( 'atchalian, et al(

%+$, (Ap

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition Bled by the Solicitor 'eneral seeCin8

1. to set aside the ResolutionDTe>porary Restrainin8 #rder dated Septe>ber :,1990, issued by respondent ud8e de la Rosa in "i7il "ase $o( 90*)E21E which

denied petitioners >otion to dis>iss and restrained petitioners fro> co>>encin8

or continuin8 with any of the proceedin8s which would lead to the deportation of

respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, docCeted as +("( $o( 90*)23, as well as the #rder of

respondent ud8e "apulon8 dated Septe>ber =, 1990 in "i7il "ase $o( 3E31**90

which liCewise enGoined petitioners fro> proceedin8 with the deportation char8es



a8ainst respondent 'atchalian, and 2. to prohibit respondent Gud8es fro> further

actin8 in the aforesaid ci7il cases(

#n #ctober 23, 1990, respondent 'atchalian Bled his "o>>ent with "ounter*

Petition, docCeted as '(R( $os( 9=)12*13, alle8in8 lacC of Gurisdiction on the part of

respondent %oard of "o>>issioners, et al(, o7er his person with prayer that he be

declared a Filipino citi;en, or in the alternati7e, to re>and the case to the trial court

for further proceedin8s(

#n +ece>ber 13, 1990, petitioners Bled their co>>ent to respondent 'atchalians

counter*petition( The "ourt considers the co>>ent Bled by respondent 'atchalian

as answer to the petition and petitioners co>>ent as answer to the counter*

petition and 8i7es due course to the petitions(

There is no dispute as to the followin8 factsA

#n uly 12, 19=0, Santia8o 'atchalian, 8randfather of 6illia> 'atchalian, was

reco8ni;ed by the %ureau of >>i8ration as a nati7e born Filipino citi;en followin8

the citi;enship of his natural >other, !arciana 'atchalian -&nneH I1I, counter*

petition.( %efore the "iti;enship 7aluation %oard, Santia8o 'atchalian testiBed that

he has B7e -). children with his wife "hu 'i> Tee, na>elyA ose 'atchalian, 'loria

'atchalian, Francisco 'atchalian, lena 'atchalian and %enGa>in 'atchalian -&nneH

I2I, counter*petition.(

#n une 2:, 19=1, 6illia> 'atchalian, then a twel7e*year old >inor, arri7ed in

!anila fro> 4on8Con8 to8ether with 'loria, Francisco, and ohnson, all surna>ed

'atchalian( They had with the> "ertiBcates of Re8istration and dentity issued by

the Philippine "onsulate in 4on8Con8 based on a cable8ra> bearin8 the si8nature

of the then Secretary of Forei8n &Jairs, FeliHberto Serrano, and sou8ht ad>ission as

Filipino citi;ens( 'loria and Francisco are the dau8hter and son, respecti7ely, of

Santia8o 'atchalianK while 6illia> and ohnson are the sons of Francisco(

&fter in7esti8ation, the %oard of Special nLuiry $o( 1 rendered a decision dated uly

=, 19=1, ad>ittin8 6illia> 'atchalian and his co>panions as Filipino citi;ens -&nneH

I"I, petition.( &s a conseLuence thereof, 6illia> 'atchalian was issued



dentiBcation "ertiBcate $o( 1=13) by the i>>i8ration authorities on &u8ust 1=,

19=1 -&nneH I+I, petition.(

#n anuary 2E, 19=2, the then Secretary of ustice issued !e>orandu> $o( 9

settin8 aside all decisions purportin8 to ha7e been rendered by the %oard of

"o>>issioners on appeal or on re7iew >otu proprio of decisions of the %oard of

Special nLuiry( The sa>e >e>orandu> directed the %oard of "o>>issioners to

re7iew all cases where entry was allowed on the 8round that the entrant was a

Philippine citi;en( &>on8 those cases was that of 6illia> and others(

#n uly =, 19=2, the new %oard of "o>>issioners, after a re7iew >otu proprio of the

proceedin8s had in the %oard of Special nLuiry, re7ersed the decision of the latter

and ordered the eHclusion of, a>on8 others, respondent 'atchalian -&nneH II,

petition.( & warrant of eHclusion also dated uly =, 19=2 was issued alle8in8 that

Ithe decision of the %oard of "o>>issioners dated uly =, 19=2 ( ( ( has now beco>e

Bnal and eHecutory -&nneH IFI, petition.(

The actual date of rendition of said decision by the %oard of "o>>issioners

-whether on uly =, 19=2 or uly 20, 19=2. beca>e the subGect of contro7ersy in the

19=: case of &rocha 7s( i7o -21 S"R& )32. wherein this "ourt sustained the

7alidity of the decision of the new %oard of "o>>issioners ha7in8 been

pro>ul8ated on uly =, 19=2, or within the re8le>entary period for re7iew(

So>eti>e in 19:3, respondent 'atchalian, as well as the others co7ered by the uly

=, 19=2 warrant of eHclusion, Bled a >otion for re*hearin8 with the %oard of Special

nLuiry where the deportion case a8ainst the> was assi8ned(

#n !arch 1E, 19:3, the %oard of Special nLuiry reco>>ended to the then &ctin8

"o>>issioner ictor $ituda the re7ersal of the uly =, 19=2 decision of the then

%oard of "o>>issioners and the recall of the warrants of arrest issued therein

-&nneH I)I, counter*petition.(

#n !arch 1), 19:3, &ctin8 "o>>issioner $ituda issued an order rea@r>in8 the uly

=, 19=1 decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry thereby ad>ittin8 respondent

'atchalian as a Filipino citi;en and recalled the warrant of arrest issued a8ainst hi>

-&nneH I=I, counter*petition.(



#n une :, 1990, the actin8 director of the $ational %ureau of n7esti8ation wrote

the Secretary of ustice reco>>endin8 that respondent 'atchalian alon8 with the

other applicants co7ered by the warrant of eHclusion dated uly =, 19=2 be char8ed

with 7iolation of Sec( 3: -a., pars( 1 and 2, in relation to Secs( E) -c., and -d. and -e.of "o>>onwealth &ct $o( =13, as a>ended, also Cnown as the >>i8ration &ct of

19E0 -&nneH I'I, petition.(

#n &u8ust 1, 1990, the Secretary of ustice indorsed the reco>>endation of the $%

to the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration for in7esti8ation and i>>ediate action -&nneH

I20I, counter*petition.(

#n &u8ust 1), 1990, petitioner "o>>issioner +o>in8o of the "o>>ission of>>i8ration and +eportation M issued a >ission order co>>andin8 the arrest of

respondent 6illia> 'atchalian -&nneH I1NI, counter*petition.( The latter appeared

before "o>>issioner +o>in8o on &u8ust 20, 1990 and was released on the sa>e

day upon postin8 P200,000(00 cash bond(

#n &u8ust 29, 1990, 6illia> 'atchalian Bled a petition for certiorari and prohibition

with inGunction before the Re8ional Trial "ourt of !anila, %r( 29, presided by

respondent ud8e dela Rosa, docCeted as "i7il "ase $o( 90*)E21E(

#n Septe>ber E, 1990, petitioners Bled a >otion to dis>iss "i7il "ase $o( 90*)E21E

alle8in8 that respondent Gud8e has no Gurisdiction o7er the %oard of "o>>issioners

andDor the %oard of Special nLuiry( $onetheless, respondent Gud8e dela Rosa issued

the assailed order dated Septe>ber :, 1990, denyin8 the >otion to dis>iss(

!eanwhile, on Septe>ber =, 1990, respondent 'atchalians wife and >inor children

Bled before the Re8ional Trial "ourt of alen;uela, !etro !anila, %r( 1:2, presided by

respondent Gud8e "apulon8 "i7il "ase $o( 3E31**90 for inGunction with writ ofpreli>inary inGunction( The co>plaint alle8ed, a>on8 others, that petitioners acted

without or in eHcess of Gurisdiction in the institution of deportation proceedin8s

a8ainst 6illia>( #n the sa>e day, respondent "apulon8 issued the Luestioned

te>porary restrainin8 order restrainin8 petitioners fro> continuin8 with the

deportation proceedin8s a8ainst 6illia> 'atchalian(



The petition is anchored on the followin8 propositionsA 1. respondent Gud8es ha7e

no Gurisdiction o7er petitioners -%oard of "o>>issioners, et al(,. and the subGect

>atter of the case, appellate Gurisdiction bein8 7ested by %P 129 with the "ourt of

&ppealsK 2. assu>in8 respondent Gud8es ha7e Gurisdiction, they acted with 8ra7e

abuse of discretion in pree>ptin8 petitioners in the eHercise of the authority and

Gurisdiction to hear and deter>ine the deportation case a8ainst respondent'atchalian, and in the process deter>ine also his citi;enshipK 3. respondent Gud8e

dela Rosa 8ra7ely abused his discretion in rulin8 that the issues raised in the

deportation proceedin8s are beyond the co>petence and Gurisdiction of petitioners,

thereby disre8ardin8 the cases of &rocha 7s( i7o and i7o 7s( &rca -supra., which

put Bnality to the uly =, 19=2 decision of the %oard of "o>>issioners that

respondent 'atchalian is a "hinese citi;enK and E. respondent Gud8e "apulon8

should ha7e dis>issed "i7il "ase $o( 3E31**90 for foru>*shoppin8(

n his counter*petition, 6illia> 'atchalian alle8es a>on8 others thatA 1. assu>in8that the e7idence on record is not su@cient to declare hi> a Filipino citi;en,

petitioners ha7e no Gurisdiction to proceed with the deportation case until the courts

shall ha7e Bnally resol7ed the Luestion of his citi;enshipK 2. petitioners can no

lon8er Gudiciously and fairly resol7e the Luestion of respondents citi;enship in the

deportation case because of their bias, pre*Gud8>ent and preGudice a8ainst hi>K

and 3. the 8round for which he is sou8ht to be deported has already prescribed(

For purposes of unifor>ity, the parties herein will be referred to in the order the

petitions were Bled(

Petitioners ar8ue that under Sec( 9 -3. of %P 129, it is the "ourt of &ppeals which

has eHclusi7e appellate Gurisdiction o7er all Bnal Gud8>ents or orders of Luasi*

Gudicial a8encies, boards or co>>issions, such as the %oard of "o>>issioners and

the %oard of Special nLuiry(

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that petitioners are not Luasi*Gudicial

a8encies and are not in eLual ranC with Re8ional Trial "ourts(

Under Sec( 21 -1. of %atas Pa>bansa %l8( 129, the Re8ional Trial "ourts ha7e

concurrent Gurisdiction with this "ourt and the "ourt of &ppeals to issue Iwrits of

certiorari, prohibition, >anda>us, Luo warranto, habeas corpus and inGunction

which >ay be enforced in any part of their respecti7e re8ions, ( ( (I Thus, the RT"s



are 7ested with the power to deter>ine whether or not there has been a 8ra7e

abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instru>entality of the 8o7ern>ent(

t is true that under Sec( 9 -3. of %atas Pa>bansa %l8( 129, the "ourt of &ppeals is

7ested with O

-3. Hclusi7e appellate Gurisdiction o7er all Bnal Gud8>ents, decisions,

resolutions, order, or awards of Re8ional Trial "ourts and Luasi*Gudicial a8encies,

instru>entalities, board or co>>ission, eHcept those fallin8 within the appellate

Gurisdiction of the Supre>e "ourt in accordance with the "onstitution, the pro7isions

of this &ct, and of sub*para8raph -1. of the third para8raph of and sub*para8raph -E.

of the fourth para8raph of Section 1: of the udiciary &ct of 19EN(

t does not pro7ide, howe7er, that said eHclusi7e appellate Gurisdiction of the "ourt

of &ppeals eHtends to all Luasi*Gudicial a8encies( The Luasi*Gudicial bodies whose

decisions are eHclusi7ely appealable to the "ourt of &ppeals are those which under

the law, Republic &ct $o( )E3E, or their enablin8 acts, are speciBcally appealable to

the "ourt of &ppeals -Presidential &nti*+ollar Saltin8 TasC Force 7s( "ourt of &ppeals,

1:1 S"R& 3EN 19N9QK /upan8co 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, 1=0 S"R& NEN 19NNQ.( Thus,

under Republic &ct $o( )E3E, it is speciBcally pro7ided that the decisions of the

/and Re8istration "o>>ission -/R"., the Social Security "o>>ission -SS"., "i7il

&eronautics %oard -"&%., the Patent #@ce and the &8ricultural n7ention %oard are

appealable to the "ourt of &ppeals(

n the Presidential &nti*+ollar Saltin8 TasC Force -supra., this "ourt clariBed the

>atter when 6e ruledA

Under our Resolution dated anuary 11, 19N3A

( ( ( The appeals to the nter>ediate &ppellate "ourt -now "ourt of &ppeals. fro>

Luasi*Gudicial bodies shall continue to be 8o7erned by the pro7isions of Republic &ct

$o( )E3E insofar as the sa>e is not inconsistent with the pro7isions of %(P( %l8( 129(

The pertinent pro7isions of Republic &ct $o( )E3E are as followsA



Sec( 1( &ppeals fro> speciBed a8encies(O &ny pro7ision of eHistin8 law or

Rules of "ourt to the contrary notwithstandin8, parties a88rie7ed by a Bnal rulin8,

award, order, or decision, or Gud8>ent of the "ourt of &8rarian RelationsK the

Secretary of /abor under Section : of Republic &ct $u>bered SiH hundred and two,also Cnown as the I!ini>u> 6a8e /awIK the +epart>ent of /abor under Section 23

of Republic &ct $u>bered i8ht hundred se7enty*B7e, also Cnown as the Industrial

Peace &ctIK the /and Re8istration "o>>issionK the Social Security "o>>issionK the

"i7il &eronautics %oardK the Patent #@ce and the &8ricultural n7entions %oard, >ay

appeal therefro> to the "ourt of &ppeals, within the period and in the >anner

herein pro7ided, whether the appeal in7ol7es Luestions of fact, >iHed Luestions of

fact and law, or Luestions of law, or all three Cinds of Luestions( Fro> Bnal

Gud8>ents or decisions of the "ourt of &ppeals, the a88rie7ed party >ay appeal by

certiorari to the Supre>e "ourt as pro7ided under Rule E) of the Rules of "ourt(

%ecause of subseLuent a>end>ents, includin8 the abolition of 7arious special

courts, Gurisdiction o7er Luasi*Gudicial bodies has to be, conseLuently, deter>ined

by the correspondin8 a>endatory statutes( Under the /abor "ode, decisions and

awards of the $ational /abor Relations "o>>ission are Bnal and eHecutory, but,

ne7ertheless, re7iewable by this "ourt throu8h a petition for certiorari and not by

way of appeal(

Under the Property Re8istration +ecree, decision of the "o>>ission of /and

Re8istration, en consulta, are appealable to the "ourt of &ppeals(

The decisions of the Securities and Hchan8e "o>>ission are liCewise appealable to

the &ppellate "ourt, and so are decisions of the Social Security "o>>ission(

&s a rule, where le8islation pro7ides for an appeal fro> decisions of certain

ad>inistrati7e bodies to the "ourt of &ppeals, it >eans that such bodies are co*

eLual with the Re8ional Trial "ourts, in ter>s of ranC and stature, and lo8ically,beyond the control of the latter( ->phasis supplied.

There are Luasi*Gudicial a8encies, as the $ational /abor Relations "o>>issions,

whose decisions are directly appealable to this "ourt( t is only when a speciBc law,

as Republic &ct $o( )E3E, pro7ides appeal fro> certain bodies or co>>issions to



the "ourt of &ppeals as the /and Re8istration "o>>ission -/R"., Securities and

Hchan8e "o>>ission -S". and others, that the said co>>issions or boards >ay

be considered co*eLual with the RT"s in ter>s of ranC, stature and are lo8ically

beyond the control of the latter(

4owe7er, the %ureau of >>i8ration -or "+. is not a>on8 those Luasi*Gudicial

a8encies speciBed by law whose decisions, orders, and resolutions are directly

appealable to the "ourt of &ppeals( n fact, its decisions are subGect to Gudicial

re7iew in accordance with Sec( 2), "hapter E, %ooC of the 19N: &d>inistrati7e

"ode, which pro7ides as followsA

Sec( 2)( udicial Re7iew(O-1. &8ency decisions shall be subGect to Gudicial

re7iew in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws(

HHH HHH HHH

-=. The re7iew proceedin8 shall be Bled in the court speciBed in the statute or, in

the absence thereof, in any court of co>petent Gurisdiction in accordance with the

pro7isions on 7enue of the Rules of "ourt(

Said pro7ision of the &d>inistrati7e "ode, which is subseLuent to %(P( %l8( 129 and

which thus >odiBes the latter, pro7ides that the decision of an a8ency liCe the

%ureau of >>i8ration should be subGect to re7iew by the court speciBed by the

statute or in the absence thereof, it is subGect to re7iew by any court of co>petent

Gurisdiction in accordance with the pro7isions on 7enue of the Rules of "ourt(

%(P( %l8( 129 did not intend to raise all Luasi*Gudicial bodies to the sa>e le7el or

ranC of the RT" eHcept those speciBcally pro7ided for under the law as aforestated(

&s the %ureau of >>i8ration is not of eLual ranC as the RT", its decisions >ay beappealable to, and >ay be re7iewed throu8h a special ci7il action for certiorari by,

the RT" -Sec( 21, -1. %P 129.(

True, it is beyond ca7il that the %ureau of >>i8ration has the eHclusi7e authority

and Gurisdiction to try and hear cases a8ainst an alle8ed alien, and in the process,



deter>ine also their citi;enship -/ao 'i 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, 1N0 S"R& :)= 19N9Q.(

&nd a >ere clai> of citi;enship cannot operate to di7est the %oard of

"o>>issioners of its Gurisdiction in deportation proceedin8s -!iranda 7s(

+eportation %oard, 9E Phil( )31 19)EQ.(

4owe7er, the rule enunciated in the abo7e*cases ad>its of an eHception, at least

insofar as deportation proceedin8s are concerned( Thus, what if the clai> to

citi;enship of the alle8ed deportee is satisfactory Should the deportation

proceedin8s be allowed to continue or should the Luestion of citi;enship be

7entilated in a Gudicial proceedin8 n "hua 4ion8 7s( +eportation %oard -9= Phil(

==) 19))Q., this "ourt answered the Luestion in the a@r>ati7e, and 6e LuoteA

6hen the e7idence sub>itted by a respondent is conclusi7e of his citi;enship, the

ri8ht to i>>ediate re7iew should also be reco8ni;ed and the courts should pro>ptly

enGoin the deportation proceedin8s( & citi;en is entitled to li7e in peace, without

>olestation fro> any o@cial or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation

proceedin8, he has the unLuestionable ri8ht to resort to the courts for his

protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the le8al 8round

that the %oard lacCs Gurisdiction( f he is a citi;en and e7idence thereof is

satisfactory, there is no sense nor Gustice in allowin8 the deportation proceedin8s to

continue, 8rantin8 hi> the re>edy only after the %oard has Bnished its in7esti8ation

of his undesirability(

( ( ( &nd if the ri8ht -to peace. is precious and 7aluable at all, it >ust also be

protected on ti>e, to pre7ent undue harass>ent at the hands of ill*>eanin8 or

>isinfor>ed ad>inistrati7e o@cials( #f what use is this >uch boasted ri8ht to

peace and liberty if it can be a7ailed of only after the +eportation %oard has

unGustly tra>pled upon it, bes>irchin8 the citi;ens na>e before the bar of public

opinion ->phasis supplied.

The doctrine of pri>ary Gurisdiction of petitioners %oard of "o>>issioners o7er

deportation proceedin8s is, therefore, not without eHception -"alacday 7s( i7o, 33

S"R& E13 19:0QK i7o 7s( !ontesa, 2E S"R& 1)) 19=:Q.( udicial inter7ention,

howe7er, should be 8ranted only in cases where the Iclai> of citi;enship is so

substantial that there are reasonable 8rounds to belie7e that the clai> is correct( n

other words, the re>edy should be allowed only on sound discretion of a co>petent

court in a proper proceedin8 -"hua 4ion8 7s( +eportation %oard, supraK "o( 7s(



+eportation %oard, :N S"R& 10: 19::Q.( t appearin8 fro> the records that

respondents clai> of citi;enship is substantial, as 6e shall show later, Gudicial

inter7ention should be allowed(

n the case at bar, the co>petent court which could properly taCe co8ni;ance of the

proceedin8s instituted by respondent 'atchalian would nonetheless be the Re8ional

Trial "ourt and not the "ourt of &ppeals in 7iew of Sec( 21 -1., %P 129, which confers

upon the for>er Gurisdiction o7er actions for prohibition concurrently with the "ourt

of &ppeals and the Supre>e "ourt and in line with the pronounce>ents of this "ourt

in "hua 4ion8 and "o cases(

#rdinarily, the case would then be re>anded to the Re8ional Trial "ourt( %ut not in

the case at bar( "onsiderin8 the 7olu>inous pleadin8s sub>itted by the parties and

the e7idence presented, 6e dee> it proper to decide the contro7ersy ri8ht at this

instance( &nd this course of action is not without precedent for Iit is a cherished rule

of procedure for this "ourt to always stri7e to settle the entire contro7ersy in a

sin8le proceedin8 lea7in8 no root or branch to bear the seeds of future liti8ation( $o

useful purpose will be ser7ed if this case is re>anded to the trial court only to ha7e

its decision raised a8ain to the "ourt of &ppeals and fro> there to this "ourtI

-!arLue; 7s( !arLue;, :3 Phil( :EK 5era>ic ndustries, nc( 7s( 'uerrero, =1 S"R&

2=) 19:EQ. &l8er lectric, nc( 7s( "ourt of &ppeals -13) S"R& 3: 19N)Q., citin8

'ayos 7s( 'ayos -=: S"R& 1E= 19:)Q.(

n /ian8a %ay /o88in8 "o(, nc( 7s( "ourt of &ppeals -1): S"R& 3): 19NNQ., 6e also

statedA

Re>and of the case to the lower court for further reception of e7idence is not

necessary where the court is in a position to resol7e the dispute based on the

records before it( #n >any occasions, the "ourt, in the public interest and the

eHpeditious ad>inistration of Gustice, has resol7ed actions on the >erits instead of

re>andin8 the> to the trial court for further proceedin8s, such as where the ends of

Gustice would not be subser7ed by the re>and of the case or when public interestde>ands an early disposition of the case or where the trial court had already

recei7ed all the e7idence of the parties -uisu>bin8 7s( "&, 112 S"R& :03K

Francisco, et al(, 7s( The "ity of +a7ao, et al(, supraK Republic 7s( Security "redit ?

&cceptance "orp(, et al(, 19 S"R& )NK Sa>al 7s( "&, supraK Republic 7s( "entral

Surety ? nsurance "o(, 2) S"R& =E1.(



/iCewise in TeGones 7s( 'ironella -1)9 S"R& 100 19NNQ., 6e saidA

Sound practice seeCs to acco>>odate the theory which a7oids waste of ti>e, eJort

and eHpense, both to the parties and the 8o7ern>ent, not to speaC of delay in the

disposal of the case -cf( Fernande; 7s( 'arcia, 92 Phil( )92, 29:.( & >arCed

characterstic of our Gudicial set*up is that where the dictates of Gustice so de>and ( (

( the Supre>e "ourt should act, and act with Bnality -/i Siu /iat 7s( Republic, 21

S"R& 1039, 10E=, citin8 Sa>al 7s( "&, 99 Phil( 230 and US 7s( 'i>ene;, 3E Phil(

:E(. -%eautifont, nc( 7s( "ourt of appeals, et al(, an( 29, 19NNK See also /abo 7s(

"o>>ission on lections, 1:= S"R& 1 19N9Q.(

Respondent 'atchalian has adduced e7idence not only before the Re8ional Trial

"ourt but also before Us in the for> of public docu>ents attached to his pleadin8s(

#n the other hand, Special Prosecutor Renato !abolo in his !anifestation -dated

Septe>ber =, 1990K Rollo, p( 29N, counter*petition. before the %ureau of

>>i8ration already stated that there is no lon8er a need to adduce e7idence in

support of the deportation char8es a8ainst respondent( n addition, petitioners

in7oCe that this "ourts decision in &rocha 7s( i7o and i7o 7s( &rca -supra., has

already settled respondents aliena8e( 4ence, the need for a Gudicial deter>ination

of respondents citi;enship specially so where the latter is not seeCin8 ad>ission,

but is already in the Philippines -for the past thirty 30Q years. and is bein8 eHpelled

-"hua 4ion8 7s( +eportation %oard, supra.(

&ccordin8 to petitioners, respondents aliena8e has been conclusi7ely settled by this

"ourt in the &rocha and i7o cases, 6e disa8ree( t >ust be noted that in said

cases, the sole issue resol7ed therein was the actual date of rendition of the uly =,

19=2 decision of the then board of "o>>issioners, i(e(, whether the decision was

rendered on uly =, 19=2 or on uly 20, 19=2 it appearin8 that the B8ure -date. I20I

was erased and o7er it was superi>posed the B8ure I=I thereby >aCin8 the

decision fall within the one*year re8le>entary period fro> uly =, 19=1 within which

the decision >ay be re7iewed( This "ourt did not sLuarely pass upon any Luestion

of citi;enship, >uch less that of respondents who was not a party in the aforesaid

cases( The said cases ori8inated fro> a petition for a writ of habeas corpus Bled on uly 21, 19=) by !acario &rocha in behalf of Pedro 'atchalian( 6ell settled is the

rule that a person not party to a case cannot be bound by a decision rendered

therein(



$either can it be ar8ued that the %oard of "o>>issioners decision -dated uly =,

19=2. Bndin8 respondents clai> to Philippine citi;enship not satisfactorily pro7ed,

constitute res Gudicata( For one thin8, said decision did not >aCe any cate8orical

state>ent that respondent 'atchalian is a "hinese( Secondly, the doctrine of res

Gudicata does not apply to Luestions of citi;enship -/abo 7s( "o>>ission on

lections -supra.K citin8 Soria 7s( "o>>issioner of >>i8ration, 3: S"R& 213K /ee7s( "o>>issioner of >>i8ration, E2 S"R& )=1 19:1QK Sia Reyes 7s( +eportation

%oard, 122 S"R& E:N 19N3Q.(

n !oy a /i> 7s( "o>>issioner of >>i8ration -E1 S"R& 292 19:1Q. and in /ee 7s(

"o>>issioner of >>i8ration -supra., this "ourt declared thatA

-e.7eryti>e the citi;enship of a person is >aterial or indispensable in a Gudicial or

ad>inistrati7e case, whate7er the correspondin8 court or ad>inistrati7e authority

decides therein as to such citi;enship is 8enerally not considered as res adGudicata,

hence it has to be threshed out a8ain and a8ain as the occasion >ay de>and(

&n eHception to the abo7e rule was laid by this "ourt in %urca 7s( Republic -)1 S"R&

2EN 19:3Q., 7i;A

6e declare it to be a sound rule that where the citi;enship of a party in a case is

deBnitely resol7ed by a court or by an ad>inistrati7e a8ency, as a >aterial issue in

the contro7ersy, after a full*blown hearin8 with the acti7e participation of the

Solicitor 'eneral or his authori;ed representati7e, and this Bndin8 or the citi;enship

of the party is a@r>ed by this "ourt, the decision on the >atter shall constitute

conclusi7e proof of such partys citi;enship in any other case or proceedin8( %ut it is

>ade clear that in no instance will a decision on the Luestion of citi;enship in such

cases be considered conclusi7e or bindin8 in any other case or proceedin8, unless

obtained in accordance with the procedure herein stated(

Thus, in order that the doctrine of res Gudicata >ay be applied in cases of

citi;enship, the followin8 >ust be presentA 1. a persons citi;enship >ust be raised

as a >aterial issue in a contro7ersy where said person is a partyK 2. the Solicitor

'eneral or his authori;ed representati7e tooC acti7e part in the resolution thereof,

and 3. the Bndin8 or citi;enship is a@r>ed by this "ourt(



'au8ed by the fore8oin8, 6e Bnd the pre*conditions set forth in %urca ineHistent in

the &rocha and i7o cases relied upon by petitioners( ndeed, respondent 6illia>

'atchalian was not e7en a party in said cases(

"o>in8 now to the contention of petitioners that the arrest of respondent follows as

a >atter of conseLuence based on the warrant of eHclusion issued on uly =, 19=2,

coupled with the &rocha and i7o cases -Rollo, pp( 33., the "ourt Bnds the sa>e

de7oid of >erit(

Sec( 3: -a. of "o>>onwealth &ct $o( =13, as a>ended, otherwise Cnown as the

>>i8ration &ct of 19E0, readsA

Sec( 3:( -a. The followin8 aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the

"o>>issioner of >>i8ration or of any other o@cer desi8nated by hi> for the

purpose and deported upon the warrant of the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration after a

deter>ination by the %oard of "o>>issioner of the eHistence of the 8round for

deportation as char8ed a8ainst the alien( ->phasis supplied.

Fro> a perusal of the abo7e pro7ision, it is clear that in >atters of i>ple>entin8 the

>>i8ration &ct insofar as deportation of aliens are concerned, the "o>>issioner of

>>i8ration >ay issue warrants of arrest only after a deter>ination by the %oard of

"o>>issioners of the eHistence of the 8round for deportation as char8ed a8ainst

the alien( n other words, a warrant of arrest issued by the "o>>issioner of

>>i8ration, to be 7alid, >ust be for the sole purpose of eHecutin8 a Bnal order of

deportation( & warrant of arrest issued by the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration for

purposes of in7esti8ation only, as in the case at bar, is null and 7oid for bein8

unconstitutional -&n8 $8o "hion8 7s( 'alan8, =: S"R& 33N 19:)Q citin8 Po SioC Pin

7s( i7o, =2 S"R& 3=3 19:)QK i7o 7s( !ontesa, 2E S"R& 1))K !orano 7s( i7o, 20

S"R& )=2K ua "hee 'an 7s( +eportation %oard, 9 S"R& 2: 19=3QK $8 4ua To 7s(

'alan8, 10 S"R& E11K see also Santos 7s( "o>>issioner of >>i8ration, :E S"R& 9=

19:=Q.(

&s 6e held in ua "hee 'an 7s( +eportation %oard -supra., I-t.he constitution does

not distin8uish warrants between a cri>inal case and ad>inistrati7e proceedin8s(

&nd if one suspected of ha7in8 co>>itted a cri>e is entitled to a deter>ination of

the probable cause a8ainst hi>, by a Gud8e, why should one suspected of a 7iolation

of an ad>inistrati7e nature deser7e less 8uaranteeI t is not indispensable that the



alle8ed alien be arrested for purposes of in7esti8ation( f the purpose of the

issuance of the warrant of arrest is to deter>ine the eHistence of probable cause,

surely, it cannot pass the test of constitutionality for only Gud8es can issue the sa>e

-Sec( 2, &rt( , "onstitution.(

& readin8 of the >ission orderDwarrant of arrest -dated &u8ust 1), 1990K Rollo, p(

1N3, counter*petition. issued by the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration, clearly indicates

that the sa>e was issued only for purposes of in7esti8ation of the suspects, 6illia>

'atchalian included( Para8raphs 1 and 3 of the >ission order directs the ntelli8ence

&8entsD#@cers toA

HHH HHH HHH

1( !aCe a warrantless arrest under the Rules of "ri>inal Procedure, Rule 113,

Sec( ), for 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ct, Sec( 3:, para( aK Secs( E) and E=

&d>inistrati7e "odeK

HHH HHH HHH

3( +eli7er the suspect to the ntelli8ence +i7ision and i>>ediately conductcustodial interro8ation, after warnin8 the suspect that he has a ri8ht to re>ain

silent and a ri8ht to counselK ( ( (

4ence, petitioners ar8u>ent that the arrest of respondent was based, ostensibly,

on the uly =, 19=2 warrant of eHclusion has ob7iously no le8 to stand on( The

>ission orderDwarrant of arrest >ade no >ention that the sa>e was issued

pursuant to a Bnal order of deportation or warrant of eHclusion(

%ut there is one >ore thin8 that >ilitates a8ainst petitioners cause( &s records

indicate, which petitioners con7eniently o>itted to state either in their petition or

co>>ent to the counter*petition of respondent, respondent 'atchalian, alon8 with

others pre7iously co7ered by the 19=2 warrant of eHclusion, Bled a >otion for re*

hearin8 before the %oard of Special nLuiry -%S. so>eti>e in 19:3(



#n !arch 1E, 19:3, the %oard of Special nLuiry, after 8i7in8 due course to the

>otion for re*hearin8, sub>itted a >e>orandu> to the then &ctin8 "o>>issioner

ictor $ituda -&nneH I)I, counter*petition. reco>>endin8 1 the reconsideration of

the uly =, 19=2 decision of the then %oard of "o>>issioners which re7ersed the

uly =, 19=1 decision of the then %oard of Special nLuiry $o( 1 and 2 the liftin8 of

the warrants of arrest issued a8ainst applicants( The >e>orandu> inferred that theI7ery basis of the %oard of "o>>issioners in re7ersin8 the decision of the %oard of

Special nLuiry was due to a for8ed cable8ra> by the then Secretary of Forei8n

&Jairs, ( ( (, which was dispatched to the Philippine "onsulate in 4on8 5on8

authori;in8 the re8istration of applicants as P(( citi;ens(I The %oard of Special

nLuiry concluded that I-i.f at all, the cable8ra> only led to the issuance of their

"ertiBcate-s. of dentity which tooC the place of a passport for their authori;ed

tra7el to the Philippines( t bein8 so, e7en if the applicants could ha7e entered

ille8ally, the >ere fact that they are citi;ens of the Philippines entitles the> to

re>ain in the country(I

#n !arch 1), 19:3, then &ctin8 "o>>issioner $ituda issued an #rder -&nneH I=I,

counter*petition. which a@r>ed the %oard of Special nLuiry $o( 1 decision dated

uly =, 19=1 ad>ittin8 respondent 'atchalian and others as Filipino citi;ensK recalled

the uly =, 19=2 warrant of arrest and re7alidated their dentiBcation "ertiBcates(

The abo7e order ad>ittin8 respondent as a Filipino citi;en is the last o@cial act of

the 8o7ern>ent on the basis of which respondent 6illia> 'atchalian continually

eHercised the ri8hts of a Filipino citi;en to the present( "onseLuently, thepresu>ption of citi;enship lies in fa7or of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian(

There should be no Luestion that Santia8o 'atchalian, 8randfather of 6illia>

'atchalian, is a Filipino citi;en( &s a >atter of fact, in the 7ery order of the %#" of

uly =, 19=2, which re7ersed the uly =, 19=1 %S order, it is an accepted fact that

Santia8o 'atchalian is a Filipino( The openin8 para8raph of said order statesA

The clai> to Filipino citi;enship of abo7ena>ed applicants is based on theciti;enship of one Santia8o 'atchalian whose Philippine citi;enship was reco8ni;ed

by the %ureau of >>i8ration in an #rder dated uly 12, 19=0( -&nneH I3:I,

"o>>ent with "ounter*Petition.(



$onetheless, in said order it was found that the applicants therein ha7e not

satisfactorily pro7en that they are the children andDor 8randchildren of Santia8o

'atchalian( The status of Santia8o 'atchalian as a Filipino was reiterated in &rocha

and &rca -supra. where ad7ertence is >ade to the Iapplicants bein8 the

descendants of one Santia8o 'atchalian, a Filipino(I -at p( )39.(

n the sworn state>ent of Santia8o 'atchalian before the Philippine "onsul in

4on8Con8 in 19=1 -&nneH I1I to the "o>>ent of petitioners to "ounter*Petition., he

reiterated his status as a Philippine citi;en bein8 the ille8iti>ate child of Pablo

Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian, the latter bein8 a FilipinoK that he was born in

!anila on uly 2), 190)K and that he was issued Philippine Passport $o( 2N1=0 -P&*

$o( &9119=. on $o7e>ber 1N, 19=0 by the +epart>ent of Forei8n &Jairs in !anila(

n his a@da7it of anuary 23, 19=1 -&nneH I)I, counter*petition., Santia8o reiterated

his clai> of Philippine citi;enship as a conseLuence of his petition for cancellation of

his alien re8istry which was 8ranted on February 1N, 19=0 in "((%( $o( 3==0*/K andthat on uly 20, 19=0, he was reco8ni;ed by the %ureau of >>i8ration as a Filipino

and was issued "ertiBcate $o( 1*2123(

The dissentin8 opinions of >y estee>ed brethrens, !essrs( ustices F(P( Feliciano

and 4('( +a7ide, r(, proposin8 to re*open the Luestion of citi;enship of Santia8o

'atchalian at this sta8e of the case, where it is not e7en put in issue, is Luite >uch

to late( &s stated abo7e, the records of the %ureau of >>i8ration show that as of

uly 20, 19=0, Santia8o 'atchalian had been declared to be a Filipino citi;en( t is a

Bnal decision that forecloses a re*openin8 of the sa>e 30 years later( Petitioners donot e7en Luestion Santia8o 'atchalians Philippine citi;enship( t is the citi;enship of

respondent 6illia> 'atchalian that is in issue and addressed for deter>ination of

the "ourt in this case(

Further>ore, petitioners position is not enhanced by the fact that respondents

arrest ca>e twenty*ei8ht -2N. years after the alle8ed cause of deportation arose(

Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct states that deportation Ishall not be

eJected ( ( ( unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within B7e -).

years after the cause of deportation arises(I n /a> Shee 7s( %en8;on -93 Phil( 10=)19)3Q., 6e laid down the conseLuences of such inaction, thusA

There is howe7er an i>portant circu>stance which places this case beyond the

reach of the resultant conseLuence of the fraudulent act co>>itted by the >other

of the >inor when she ad>itted that she 8ained entrance into the Philippines by



>aCin8 use of the na>e of a "hinese resident >erchant other than that of her

lawful husband, and that is, that the >other can no lon8er be the subGect of

deportation proceedin8s for the si>ple reason that >ore than ) years had elapsed

fro> the date of her ad>ission( $ote that the abo7e irre8ularity was di7ul8ed by the

>other herself, who in a 8esture of sincerity, >ade an spontaneous ad>ission

before the i>>i8ration o@cials in the in7esti8ation conducted in connection withthe landin8 of the >inor on Septe>ber 2E, 19E:, and not throu8h any eJort on the

part of the i>>i8ration authorities( &nd considerin8 this franC ad>ission, plus the

fact that the >other was found to be >arried to another "hinese resident >erchant,

now deceased, who owned a restaurant in the Philippines 7alued at P1),000 and

which 8i7es a net proBt of P)00 a >onth, the i>>i8ration o@cials then >ust ha7e

considered the irre8ularity not serious enou8h when, inspire of that Bndin8, they

decided to land said >inor Ias a properly docu>ented preference Luota i>>i8rantI

-Hhibit +.( 6e cannot therefore but wonder why two years later the i>>i8ration

o@cials would re7erse their attitude and would taCe steps to institute deportation

proceedin8s a8ainst the >inor(

Under the circu>stances obtainin8 in this case, we belie7e that >uch as the

attitude of the >other would be conde>ned for ha7in8 >ade use of an i>proper

>eans to 8ain entrance into the Philippines and acLuire per>anent residence there,

it is now too late, not to say unchristian, to deport the >inor after ha7in8 allowed

the >other to re>ain e7en ille8ally to the eHtent of 7alidatin8 her residence by

inaction, thus allowin8 the period of prescription to set in and to elapse in her fa7or(

To per>it his deportation at this late hour would be to conde>n hi> to li7e

separately fro> his >other throu8h no fault of his thereby lea7in8 hi> to a life of

insecurity resultin8 fro> lacC of support and protection of his fa>ily( This inaction or

o7ersi8ht on the part of i>>i8ration o@cials has created an ano>alous situation

which, for reasons of eLuity, should be resol7ed in fa7or of the >inor herein

in7ol7ed( ->phasis supplied.

n the case at bar, petitioners alle8ed cause of action and deportation a8ainst

herein respondent arose in 19=2( 4owe7er, the warrant of arrest of respondent was

issued by "o>>issioner +o>in8o only on &u8ust 1), 1990 O 2N lon8 years after( t

is clear that petitioners cause of action has already prescribed and by their inaction

could not now be 7alidly enforced by petitioners a8ainst respondent 6illia>

'atchalian( Further>ore, the warrant of eHclusion dated uly =, 19=2 was already

recalled and the dentiBcation certiBcate of respondent, a>on8 others, was

re7alidated on !arch 1), 19:3 by the then &ctin8 "o>>issioner $ituda(



t is also proposed in the dissentin8 opinions of !essrs( ustices Feliciano and

+a7ide, r(, that the %#" decision dated uly =, 19=2 and the warrant of eHclusion

which was found to be 7alid in &rocha should be applicable to respondent 6illia>

'atchalian e7en if the latter was not a party to said case( They also opined that

under Sec( 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct, the B7e -). years li>itation is applicable

only where the deportation is sou8ht to be eJected under clauses of Sec( 3: -b.other than clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12 and that no period of li>itation is applicable in

deportations under clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12(

The "ourt disa8rees( Under Sec( 39 of the >>i8ration &ct, it is reiterated that such

deportation proceedin8s should be instituted within B7e -). years( Section E) of the

sa>e &ct pro7ides penal sanctions for 7iolations of the oJenses therein enu>erated

with a Bne of Inot >ore than P1,000(00 and i>prison>ent for not >ore than two -2.

years and deportation if he is an alien(I ThusA

Penal Pro7isions

Sec( E)( &ny indi7idual whoO

-a. 6hen applyin8 for an i>>i8ration docu>ent personates another indi7idual,

or falsely appears in the na>e of deceased indi7idual, or e7ades the i>>i8ration

laws by appearin8 under an assu>ed na>eK Bctitious na>eK or

-b. ssues or otherwise disposes of an i>>i8ration docu>ent, to any person not

authori;ed by law to recei7e such docu>entK or

-c. #btains, accepts or uses any i>>i8ration docu>ent, Cnowin8 it to be falseK

or

-d. %ein8 an alien, enters the Philippines without inspection and ad>ission by

the i>>i8ration o@cials, or obtains entry into the Philippines by wilful, false, or

>isleadin8 representation or wilful conceal>ent of a >aterial factK or



-e. %ein8 an alien shall for any fraudulent purpose represent hi>self to be a

Philippine citi;en in order to e7ade any reLuire>ent of the i>>i8ration lawsK or

-f. n any i>>i8ration >atter shall Cnowin8ly >aCe under oath any false

state>ent or representationsK or

-8. %ein8 an alien, shall depart fro> the Philippines without Brst securin8 an

i>>i8ration clearance certiBcates reLuired by section twenty*two of this &ctK or

-h. &tte>pts or conspires with another to co>>it any of the fore8oin8 acts, shall

be 8uilty of an oJense, and upon con7iction thereof, shall be Bned not >ore than

one thousand pesos, and i>prisoned for not >ore than two years, and deported ifhe is an alien( ->phasis supplied.

Such oJenses punishable by correctional penalty prescribe in 10 years -&rt( 90,

Re7ised Penal "ode.K correctional penalties also prescribe in 10 years -&rt( 92,

Re7ised Penal "ode.(

t >ust be noted, howe7er, that under Sec( 1, &ct $o( 332= 192=Q, as a>ended,

-Prescription for iolations Penali;ed by Special &cts and !unicipal #rdinances.I7iolations penali;ed by special acts shall, unless otherwise pro7ided in such acts,

prescribe in accordance with the followin8 rulesA ( ( (c. after ei8ht years for those

punished by i>prison>ent for two years or >ore, but less than siH yearsK ( ( (I

"onseLuently, no prosecution and conseLuent deportation for 7iolation of the

oJenses enu>erated in the >>i8ration &ct can be initiated beyond the ei8ht*year

prescripti7e period, the >>i8ration &ct bein8 a special le8islation(

The "ourt, therefore, holds that the period of eJectin8 deportation of an alien after

entry or a warrant of eHclusion based on a Bnal order of the %S or %#" are not

i>prescriptible( The law itself pro7ides for a period of prescription( Prescription of

the cri>e is forfeiture or loss of the ri8hts of the State to prosecute the oJender

after the lapse of a certain ti>e, while prescription of the penalty is the loss or



forfeiture by the 8o7ern>ent of the ri8ht to eHecute the Bnal sentence after the

lapse of a certain ti>e -Padilla, "ri>inal /aw, ol( 1, 19:E, at p( N)).(

I&lthou8h a deportation proceedin8 does not partaCe of the nature of a cri>inal

action, howe7er, considerin8 that it is a harsh and eHtraordinary ad>inistrati7e

proceedin8 aJectin8 the freedo> and liberty of a person, the constitutional ri8ht of

such person to due process should not be denied( Thus, the pro7isions of the Rules

of "ourt of the Philippines particularly on cri>inal procedure are applicable to

deportation proceedin8s(I -/ao 'i 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, supra.( Under Sec( =, Rule

39 of the Rules of "ourt, a Bnal Gud8>ent >ay not be eHecuted after the lapse of

B7e -). years fro> the date of its entry or fro> the date it beco>es Bnal and

eHecutory( Thereafter, it >ay be enforced only by a separate action subGect to the

statute of li>itations( Under &rt( 11EE -3. of the "i7il "ode, an action based on

Gud8>ent >ust be brou8ht within 10 years fro> the ti>e the ri8ht of action accrues(

n relation to Sec( 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct, the rule, therefore, isA

1( +eportation or eHclusion proceedin8s should be initiated within B7e -). years

after the cause of deportation or eHclusion arises when eJected under any other

clauses other than clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12 and of para8raph -a. of Sec( 3: of the

>>i8ration &ctK and

2( 6hen deportation or eHclusion is eJected under clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12 of

para8raph -a. of Sec( 3:, the prescripti7e period of the deportation or eHclusion

proceedin8s is ei8ht -N. years(

n the case at bar, it tooC petitioners 2N years since the %#" decision was rendered

on uly =, 19=2 before they co>>enced deportation or eHclusion proceedin8s

a8ainst respondent 6illia> 'atchalian in 1990( Undoubtedly, petitioners cause of

action has already prescribed( $either >ay an action to re7i7e andDor enforce the

decision dated uly =, 19=2 be instituted after ten -10. years -&rt( 11EE 3Q, "i7il

"ode.(

Since his ad>ission as a Filipino citi;en in 19=1, respondent 6illia> 'atchalian has

continuously resided in the Philippines( 4e >arried Tin8 +ee 4ua on uly 1, 19:3

-&nneH INI, counter*petition. with who> he has four -E. >inor children( The



>arria8e contract shows that said respondent is a Filipino -&nneH INI.( 4e holds

passports and earlier passports as a Filipino -&nneHes I9I, I10I ? I11I, counter*

petition.( 4e is a re8istered 7oter of alen;uela, !etro !anila where he has lon8

resided and eHercised his ri8ht of suJra8e -&nneH 12, counter*petition.( 4e en8a8ed

in business in the Philippines since 19:3 and is the directorDo@cer of the

nternational Poly>er "orp( and Rope>an nternational "orp( as a Filipino -&nneHes,I13I ? I1EI, counter*petition.( 4e is a taHpayer( Respondent clai>s that the

co>panies he runs and in which he has a controllin8 in7est>ent pro7ides li7elihood

to E,000 e>ployees and approHi>ately 2),000 dependents( 4e continuously

enGoyed the status of Filipino citi;enship and dischar8ed his responsibility as such

until petitioners initiated the deportation proceedin8s a8ainst hi>(

IThe power to deport an alien is an act of the State( t is an act by or under the

authority of the so7erei8n power( t is a police >easure a8ainst undesirable aliens

whose presence in the country is found to be inGurious to the public 8ood anddo>estic tranLuility of the peopleI -/ao 'i 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, supra.( 4ow could

one who has helped the econo>y of the country by pro7idin8 e>ploy>ent to so>e

E,000 people be considered undesirable and be su>>arily deported when the

8o7ern>ent, in its concerted dri7e to attract forei8n in7estors, 8rants Special

Resident isa to any alien who in7est at least US)0,000(00 in the country 7en

assu>in8 ar8uendo that respondent is an alien, his deportation under the

circu>stances is unGust and unfair, if not downri8ht ille8al( The action taCen by

petitioners in the case at bar is dia>etrically opposed to settled 8o7ern>ent policy(

Petitioners, on the other hand, clai> that respondent is an alien( n support of their

position, petitioners point out that Santia8o 'atchalians >arria8e with "hu 'i> Tee

in "hina as well as the >arria8e of Francisco -father of 6illia>. 'atchalian to #n8

"hiu 5ioC, liCewise in "hina, were not supported by any e7idence other than their

own self*ser7in8 testi>ony nor was there any showin8 what the laws of "hina were(

t is the postulate ad7anced by petitioners that for the said >arria8es to be 7alid in

this country, it should ha7e been shown that they were 7alid by the laws of "hina

wherein the sa>e were contracted( There bein8 none, petitioners conclude that the

aforesaid >arria8es cannot be considered 7alid( 4ence, Santia8os children,

includin8 Francisco, followed the citi;enship of their >other, ha7in8 been born

outside of a 7alid >arria8e( Si>ilarly, the 7alidity of the Franciscos >arria8e not

ha7in8 been de>onstrated, 6illia> and ohnson followed the citi;enship of their

>other, a "hinese national(

&fter a careful consideration of petitioners ar8u>ent, 6e Bnd that it cannot be

sustained(



n !iciano 7s( %ri>o -)0 Phil( N=: 192EQK /i> and /i> 7s( "ollector of "usto>s, 3=

Phil( E:2K a> 5a /i> 7s( "ollector of "usto>s, 30 Phil( E= 191)Q., this "ourt held

that in the absence of e7idence to the contrary, forei8n laws on a particular subGect

are presu>ed to be the sa>e as those of the Philippines( n the case at bar, therebein8 no proof of "hinese law relatin8 to >arria8e, there arises the presu>ption

that it is the sa>e as that of Philippine law(

The lacC of proof of "hinese law on the >atter cannot be bla>ed on Santia8o

'atchalian >uch >ore on respondent 6illia> 'atchalian who was then a twel7e*

year old >inor( The fact is, as records indicate, Santia8o was not pressed by the

"iti;enship n7esti8ation %oard to pro7e the laws of "hina relatin8 to >arria8e,

ha7in8 been content with the testi>ony of Santia8o that the !arria8e "ertiBcate

was lost or destroyed durin8 the apanese occupation of "hina( $either was

Francisco 'atchalians testi>ony subGected to the sa>e scrutiny by the %oard of

Special nLuiry( $e7ertheless, the testi>onies of Santia8o 'atchalian and Francisco

'atchalian before the Philippine consular and i>>i8ration authorities re8ardin8

their >arria8es, birth and relationship to each other are not self*ser7in8 but are

ad>issible in e7idence as state>ents or declarations re8ardin8 fa>ily reputation or

tradition in >atters of pedi8ree -Sec( 3E, Rule 130.( Furthere>ore, this salutary rule

of e7idence Bnds support in substanti7e law( Thus, &rt( 2=: of the "i7il "ode

pro7idesA

&rt( 2=:( n the absence of a record of birth, authentic docu>ent, Bnal Gud8>ent

or possession of status, le8iti>ate Bliation >ay be pro7ed by any other >eans

allowed by the Rules of "ourt and special laws( -See also &rt( 1:2 of the Fa>ily

"ode.

"onseLuently, the testi>oniesDa@da7its of Santia8o 'atchalian and Francisco

'atchalian afore>entioned are not self*ser7in8 but are co>petent proof of Bliation

-&rt( 1:2 2Q, Fa>ily "ode.(

Philippine law, followin8 the leH loci celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a

>arria8e for>ally 7alid where celebrated is 7alid e7erywhere( Referrin8 to

>arria8es contracted abroad, &rt( :1 of the "i7il "ode -now &rt( 2= of the Fa>ily

"ode. pro7ides that I-a.ll >arria8es perfor>ed outside of the Philippines in

accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were perfor>ed, and

7alid there as such, shall also be 7alid in this country ( ( (I &nd any doubt as to the



7alidity of the >atri>onial unity and the eHtent as to how far the 7alidity of such

>arria8e >ay be eHtended to the conseLuences of the co7erture is answered by

&rt( 220 of the "i7il "ode in this >annerA In case of doubt, all presu>ptions fa7or

the solidarity of the fa>ily( Thus, e7ery intend>ent of law or facts leans toward the

7alidity of >arria8e, the indissolubility of the >arria8e bonds, the le8iti>acy of

children, the co>>unity of property durin8 >arria8e, the authority of parents o7ertheir children, and the 7alidity of defense for any >e>ber of the fa>ily in case of

unlawful a88ression(I ->phasis supplied.( %earin8 in >ind the Iprocessual

presu>ptionI enunciated in !iciano and other cases, he who asserts that the

>arria8e is not 7alid under our law bears the burden of proof to present the forei8n

law(

4a7in8 declared the assailed >arria8es as 7alid, respondent 6illia> 'atchalian

follows the citi;enship of his father Francisco, a Filipino, as a le8iti>ate child of the

latter( Francisco, in turn is liCewise a Filipino bein8 the le8iti>ate child of Santia8o'atchalian who -the latter. is ad>ittedly a Filipino citi;en whose Philippine

citi;enship was reco8ni;ed by the %ureau of >>i8ration in an order dated uly 12,

19=0(

Finally, respondent 6illia> 'atchalian belon8s to the class of Filipino citi;ens

conte>plated under Sec( 1, &rticle of the "onstitution, which pro7idesA

Sec( 1( The followin8 are citi;ens of the PhilippinesA

-1. Those who are citi;ens of the Philippines at the ti>e of the adoption of this

"onstitution( ( ( (

This forecloses any further Luestion about the Philippine citi;enship of respondent

6illia> 'atchalian(

The "ourt is not unaware of 6oon8 6oo iu 7s( i7o -13 S"R& ))2 19=)Q. relied

upon by petitioners( The rulin8 arri7ed thereat, howe7er, cannot apply in the case at

bar for the si>ple reason that the parties therein testiBed to ha7e been >arried in

"hina by a 7illa8e leader, which undoubtedly is not a>on8 those authori;ed to

sole>ni;e >arria8e as pro7ided in &rt( )= of the "i7il "ode -now &rt( :, Fa>ily

"ode.(



Pre>ises considered, the "ourt dee>s it unnecessary to resol7e the other issues

raised by the parties(

64RF#R, '(R( $os( 9)122*23 is +S!SS+ for lacC of >eritK '(R( $os( 9)=12*13

is hereby 'R&$T+ and respondent 6illia> 'atchalian is declared a Filipino citi;en(

Petitioners are hereby per>anently enGoined fro> continuin8 with the deportation

proceedin8s docCeted as +" $o( 90*)23 for lacC of Gurisdiction o7er respondent

'atchalian, he bein8 a Filipino citi;enK "i7il "ases $o( 90*)E21E and 3E31**90

pendin8 before respondent Gud8es are liCewise +S!SS+( 6ithout pronounce>ent

as to costs(

S# #R+R+(

'utierre;, r(, 'ancayco, Sar>iento, 'rio*&Luino and !edialdea, (, concur(

Fernan, "((, and $ar7asa, (, concur in the result(

Separate #pinions

+&+, R(, (, concurrin8*dissentin8A



can easily a8ree with the su>>ary of antecedent facts in the ponencia of !r(

ustice %idin and the reiteration therein of the established doctrine that the %ureau

of >>i8ration has the eHclusi7e authority and Gurisdiction to try and hear cases

a8ainst alle8ed aliens, and in the process, deter>ine also their citi;enship, and that

Ia >ere clai> of citi;enship cannot operate to di7est the %oard of "o>>issioners of

its Gurisdiction in deportation proceedin8s(I also a8ree with the conclusion that thepetitioners in '(R( $o( 9)122*23, the %oard of "o>>issioners and %oard of Special

nLuiry, hereinafter referred to as the %oards, are Luasi*Gudicial bodies(

4owe7er, cannot 8o alon8 with the 7iew that the case of 6illia> 'atchalian should

be treated as an eHception to that doctrine and, abo7e all, to the law which 7ests

upon the "ourt of &ppeals eHclusi7e appellate Gurisdiction o7er the %oards( $either

can ha7e solidarity with his opinion that this "ourt should, in this instance, rule on

the citi;enship of !r( 'atchalian instead of re>andin8 the case to the Re8ional Trial

"ourt( To 8rant hi> these beneBts would do 7iolence to the law, liberally stretch theli>its of the eHceptions or >isapply the eHceptionary rule, and to unduly pollute the

settled doctrine( $o fact or circu>stance eHists to Gustify the application of the

eHceptions for the beneBt of !r( 'atchalian( #n the contrary, substantial facts eHist

to render i>>utable the unLualiBed application of the law and the doctrine(

To >y >ind, the Luestioned acts of the %oards were done absolutely within their

Luasi*Gudicial functions( Therefore, the rule laid down in Filipinas n8ineerin8 and

!achine Shop 7s( Ferrer -13) S"R& 2). and /upan8co 7s( "ourt of &ppeals -1=0

S"R& NEN. does not apply(

"onseLuently, pursuant to para8raph 3 of Section 9 of %atas Pa>bansa %l8( 129,

and #ur resolutions of 1) Septe>ber 19N: and 2 &pril 1990 in '(R( $o( :9=3)

-"o>>issioner of "usto>s 7s( "ourt of TaH &ppeals, et al(. and '(R( $o( N0320

-"o>>issioner of nternal Re7enue 7s( "ourt of TaH &ppeals, et al(., respecti7ely,

and #ur decisions of 1= !arch 19N9, 22 +ece>ber 19N9, and = une 1990 in '(R(

$o( N3):N -Presidential &nti*+ollar Saltin8 TasC Force 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, et al(.,

1:1 S"R& 3EN, '(R( $o( N==2) -+e7elop>ent %anC of the Philippines 7s( "ourt of

TaH &ppeals, et al(., 1N0 S"R& =09, =1:, and in '(R( $o( /*EN113 -an8 7s( "ourt of&ppeals, et al(., respecti7ely, the 'atchalians should ha7e in7oCed the eHclusi7e

appellate Gurisdiction of the "ourt of &ppeals for appropriate redress instead of Blin8

petitions for certiorari and prohibition with inGunction before the Re8ional Trial "ourt

of !anila -"i7il "ase $o( 90*)E21E. and before the Re8ional Trial "ourt of

alen;uela, !etro !anila -"i7il "ase $o( 3E31**90.( The trial courts should ha7e

dis>issed the cases( n issuin8 the Luestioned orders, respondents ud8e +ela Rosa



and ud8e "apulon8 clearly acted without Gurisdiction or with 8ra7e abuse of

discretion(

&s to why 6illia> 'atchalian Bled his petition before the for>er court and his wife

and >inor children Bled a separate co>plaint before the latter has not been

eHplained( t is to be noted that he is a re8istered 7oter of alen;uela, !etro !anila

where he has lon8 resided and eHercised his ri8ht of suJra8e -&nneH 12, "ounter*

Petition.( Therefore, he should ha7e Bled his petition with the Re8ional Trial "ourt of

alen;uela( 4is wife and >inor children are not parties to the case before the

"o>>ission on >>i8ration and +eportation( Their causes of action are based

>ainly on their clai> that the acts of the %oards a8ainst 6illia> tend to depri7e

plaintiJ >other consortiu> and connubiu> and the plaintiJs >inors protection and

support( &t once, the 7iability of their causes of action is doubtfulK howe7er, if

indeed they ha7e 7alid causes of action, they could ha7e been Goined as co*plaintiJs

in the case Bled by 6illia>( t appears then that their Blin8 of a separate co>plaintbefore another court was part of a strate8y to frustrate the proceedin8s before the

%oards( &s correctly >aintained by the petitionin8 %oards, we ha7e here a clear

case of foru>*shoppin8, especially considerin8 the fact that on Septe>ber E, 1990,

or two days before the Blin8 of the case before the alen;uela court the 8o7ern>ent

Bled a >otion to dis>iss the case before the !anila court( Foru>*shoppin8 has lon8

been conde>ned and proscribed( n People 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, et al( -101 S"R&

E)0, E=3., pro>ul8ated on 2N $o7e>ber 19N0, this "ourt held that a party Ishould

not be allowed to pursue si>ultaneous re>edies in two diJerent foru>s(I n the

Resolution of 31 uly 19N= in ( Ra;on nc(, et al( 7s( Philippine Port &uthority, et al(,

'(R( $o( :)19:, this "ourt heldA

The acts of petitioners constitute a clear case of foru>*shoppin8, an act of

>alpractice that is proscribed and conde>ned as triin8 with the courts and

abusin8 their processes( t is i>proper conduct that tends to de8rade the

ad>inistration of Gustice( -See also %uan 7s( /ope;, r(, 1E) S"R& 3EK Pal> &7enue

Realty +e7elop>ent "orp( 7s( P"'', 1)3 S"R& )91K !inister of $atural Resources,

et al( 7s( 4eirs of #r7al 4u8hes, et al(, 1)) S"R& )==K /i>pin 7s( &", 1=1 S"R& 9NK

"ollado 7s( 4ernando, 1=1 S"R& =39K illanue7a, et al( 7s( &dre, et al(, 1:2 S"R&

N::K +an7ille !ariti>e, nc( 7s( "#&, 1:) S"R& :1:K "risosto>o 7s( S", 1:9 S"R&

1)EK &dlawan 7s( To>ol, 1:9 S"R& E2K and &lonto 7s( !e>oracion, 1N) S"R& :3.(

6illia> 'atchalian did not stop in his foru>*shoppin8 in the re8ional trial courts(

Under the 8uise of a counter*petition, he is now before this "ourt in an acti7e

oJensi7e role( This is a 7ery cle7er, albeit subtle, ploy to ban8 directly to this "ourt

the issue of his deportation and to di7est the %oards of their ori8inal Gurisdiction



thereon( 4e could ha7e done this at the Brst instanceK he did not( 4e and his wife

and >inor children deliberately chose, instead, to separately 8o to the wron8 court,

e7idently to delay the proceedin8s before the %oards, which they acco>plished

when the two Gud8es separately issued orders restrainin8 said %oards fro>

co>>encin8 or continuin8 with any of the proceedin8s which would lead to the

deportation of 6illia> 'atchalian -"i7il "ase $o( 90*)E21E. and fro> proceedin8with the deportation char8es a8ainst 6illia> 'atchalian -"i7il "ase $o( 3E31**90.(

"hua 4ion8 7s( +eportation %oard -9= Phil( ==). cited in the ponencia as another

authority which allows 6illia> 'atchalian to enGoy the protecti7e >antle of the

eHceptionary rule aJectin8 the eHclusi7e power of the "o>>ission on >>i8ration

and +eportation to try and hear cases a8ainst aliens and in the process also

deter>ine their citi;enship is either not applicable or is >is*applied( This case laid

down the principle that Iwhen the e7idence sub>itted by a respondent is conclusi7e

of his citi;enship, the ri8ht to i>>ediate re7iew should also be reco8ni;ed and thecourts should pro>ptly enGoin the deportation proceedin8s( ( ( ( f he is a citi;en and

e7idence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor Gustice in allowin8 the

deportation proceedin8s to continue, 8rantin8 hi> the re>edy only after the %oard

has Bnished its in7esti8ation of his undesirability( ( ( (I -e>phasis supplied.( The

word courts should not now be interpreted to >ean or to include the re8ional trial

courts because, as stated abo7e, said courts do not ha7e any appellate Gurisdiction

o7er the "o>>ission on >>i8ration and +eportation, the %oard of "o>>issioners

and the %oard of Special nLuiry( This case was decided in 19)) yet, or twenty*siH

years before the eJecti7ity of %atas Pa>bansa %l8( 129(

The condition sine Lua non then to an authori;ed Gudicial inter7ention is that the

e7idence sub>itted by a respondent is conclusi7e of his citi;enship, or as stated in

"o 7s( +eportation %oard, -:N S"R& 10E, 10:., the clai> of citi;enship is so

substantial that there are no reasonable 8rounds for the belief that the clai> is

correct(

The facts before this "ourt do not constitute, or e7en show, a conclusi7e or

substantial e7idence that 6illia> 'atchalian is a Filipino citi;en( #n the contrary,7ery serious doubts surround such a clai> fro> the be8innin8( 4is initial entry into

the Philippines was >ade possible throu8h a "ertiBcate of dentity -as Filipino.

which was issued on the basis of a for8ed cable8ra> by the then Secretary of

Forei8n &Jairs( Then on = uly 19=2 the then new %oard of "o>>issioners

pro>ul8ated a written decision in ("( "ases $os( =1*210N*" to =1*211=*" inclusi7e

-&pplication for ad>ission as Philippine citi;ens of ose, lena, %enGa>in, uan,

Pedro, 'loria, Francisco, 6illia> and ohnson, all surna>ed 'atchalian. re7ersin8



the decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry $o( 1 of = uly 19=1 and orderin8 the

eHclusion of 6illia> 'atchalian and the others as aliens not properly docu>ented(

&ccordin8ly, a warrant of eHclusion, also dated = uly 19=2, was issued by the

"o>>issioners co>>andin8 the deportation o@cer to eHclude 6illia> 'atchalian,

and others, and to cause their re>o7al fro> the country on the Brst a7ailable

transportation in accordance with law to the port of the country of which they werenationals( The pertinent portion of the +ecision reads as followsA

The clai> to Philippine citi;enship of abo7e*na>ed applicants is based on the

citi;enship of one Santia8o 'atchalian whose Philippine citi;enship was reco8ni;ed

by the %ureau of >>i8ration in an #rder, dated uly 12, 19=0( t is alle8ed that

applicants #S '&T"4&/&$, FR&$"S"# '&T"4&/&$, /$& '&T"4&/&$ and

%$&!$ '&T"4&/&$ are the le8iti>ate children of Santia8o 'atchalian with one

"hiu 'i> Tee( Hcept for the self*ser7in8 testi>onies of Santia8o 'atchalian and his

alle8ed children, there has not been sub>itted any e7idence of Santia8o

'atchalians >arria8e to "hiu 'i> Tee and the birth of the alle8ed children of the

couple( The personal records of Santia8o 'atchalian on Ble with this o@ce do not

reect the na>es of applicants as his children, and while two na>es listed in his

For> 1 -&"R application., ose and lena, bear the sa>e na>e as two of herein

applicants, the diJerence in the a8es of said applicants, casts serious doubt on their

identity( &propos, the applicants #S '&T"4&/&$, '/#R& '&T"4&/&$,

FR&$"S"# '&T"4&/&$, /$& '&T"4&/&$ and %$&!$ '&T"4&/&$, not

ha7in8 satisfactorily pro7ed as the children of Santia8o 'atchalian, deter>ination of

the citi;enship of the other applicants, U&$ '&T"4&/&$, P+R# '&T"4&/&$ and #4$S#$ '&T"4&/&$, whose ri8ht to Filipino citi;enship are >erely drawn fro>

their fathers, ose 'atchalian and Francisco 'atchalian, is unnecessary( -+ecision,

&nneH II of Petition.(

/ooCin8 bacC to the case of Santia8o, 6illia>s alle8ed 8randfather, cannot Bnd

su@cient credible e7idence to support his clai> of Filipino citi;enship( For a lon8

ti>e before 20 uly 19=0 he considered hi>self a "hinese citi;en( The IconclusionI

of the %ureau of >>i8ration that Santia8o is a Filipino citi;en is based on totally

Luestionable and insu@cient e7idence which cannot inspire belief( The #rder itself,si8ned by &ssociate "o>>issioner FeliH Talabis, supports this conclusion( t reads in

full as followsA

This is a petition for the cancellation of an alien re8istry of S&$T&'# '&T"4&/&$,

re8istered as "hinese and holder of &"R $o( &*219003 issued at !anila on 13



February 19)1 and "R $o( :)01 dated 3 !ay 19E=( 4e is alle8ed to be the son of

Filipino parents who were not lawfully >arried(

t is alle8ed that the petitioner was born in %inondo, !anila, on 2) uly 190), to

Pablo Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian( t is noted that in his application for alien

re8istration Bled with this #@ce on 13 anuary 19)1, Santia8o 'atchalian stated

that his deceased parents were Pablo Pacheco and !arciana( 4e was identiBed by

his only brother, oaLuin Pacheco, who insisted that he and petitioner are

ille8iti>ate( t is true that, on record, there is a certiBcate si8ned on 2= #ctober

1902 by !aHi>a 'atchalian, their >aternal 8rand>other, 8i7in8 consent to the

>arria8e of !arciana 'atchalian to Pablo Pacheco -Hh( %., but oaLuin said that his

parents did not actually 8et >arried( n proof of this, the baptis>al record of the

petitioner eHpressly states that Santia8o 'atchalian was born on 2) uly 190) and

bapti;ed on = #ctober 190), bein8 the son of !arciana 'atchalian, IBlipinaI, and an

unCnown father -7erbati> copy dated 22 une 190:, Parish Priest of %inondo,!anila.(

The petitioner, apparently not co>pletely certain about his ci7il status, has been

interchan8eably usin8 his paternal and >aternal surna>es( n school he was Cnown

as Santia8o Pacheco -"lass card for 1920*21, !eisic, !anilaK "ertiBcates of

co>pletion of third and fourth 8rades, !eisic Pri>ary School.K but in his residence

certiBcate dated 1: Septe>ber 193:, and in TaH "learance "ertiBcate issued on 2

#ctober 193:, he is referred to as Santia8o 'atchalianK and in a co>>unication

dated = une 19E1, he was addressed to as Santia8o Pacheco by the Philippine"harity SweepstaCes o@ce(

"onsiderin8, howe7er, the positi7e assertion by his elder brother who is better

infor>ed about their ori8in, the incontestable entry in his baptis>al record that he

is ille8iti>ate and the entry in the >arria8e contract of his elder brother wherein

the fathers na>e is o>itted and the >other, !arciana 'atchalian, is described as

Filipina ->arria8e contract dated 29 $o7e>ber 193=. there is su@cient e7idence to

establish that Santia8o 'atchalian is really Filipino at birth, bein8 the le8iti>ate

child of a Filipino wo>an(

64RF#R, the herein petition to cancel his alien re8istration is 8ranted,

petitioner shall henceforth be shown in the records of this o@ce as a citi;en of the

Philippines and the issuance to hi> of the appropriate dentiBcation certiBcate



showin8 his correct status is hereby authori;ed( -#rder of 12 uly 19=0, &nneH I1I of


&s to his alle8ed >arria8e to "hu 'i> Tee, and their B7e children, we only ha7e his

self*sellin8 oral testi>ony, thusA

6hat is the na>e of your wife

& 4er na>e is "hu 'i> Tee(

s she still ali7e

& $o, she died in 19)1, in &>oy(

+o you ha7e children with her, if so, >ention their na>es, a8es and seHes

& es( ha7e B7e children, all of the> ali7e and they are as followsA

ose 'atchalian, born on an( 2, 192: in &>oyK 'loria 'atchalian, born February 20,

1929 in &>oyK Francisco 'atchalian, born on !arch 3, 1931 in &>oyK lena

'atchalian, born on &pril E, 1933 in &>oyK %enGa>in 'atchalian, born on 31 !arch

19E2 in &>oy(

6here are they li7in8 now

& &ll of the> are now li7in8 in !acao, with >y sister*in*law by the na>e of "hu

/a> Tee( -p( E, Transcript of the proceedin8s before the "iti;en 7aluation %oard on

12 February 19=0, &nneH I2I of "o>>ent with "ounter*Petition.(



f indeed Santia8os parents, Pablo Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian, were >arried,

what was his reason for insistin8, throu8h his brother oaLuin, that he, is an

ille8iti>ate son The only possible reason is that Pablo Pacheco is a "hinese citi;en,

in which case Santia8o would follow the citi;enship of !arciana, a IBlipina(I %ut to

8i7e full faith and credit to the oral insistence of ille8iti>acy is to do 7iolence to the

presu>ptions of 7alidity of >arria8e, the indissolubility of the >arria8e bonds andthe le8iti>acy of children( -&rt( 220, "i7il "ode.( These are a>on8 the presu>ptions

which the ponencia precisely applied when it reGected the petitioners clai> that

Santia8o failed to establish his clai>ed >arria8e to "hu 'i> Tee and Franciscos

-father of 6illia>. clai>ed >arria8e to #n8 "hiu 5ioC, both of which were alle8edly

celebrated abroad( cannot Bnd any 7alid GustiBcation why these presu>ptions

should be liberally applied in fa7or of clai>ed >arria8es alle8edly celebrated

abroad but denied to purported >arria8es celebrated in the Philippines(

nterestin8ly, Santia8o used the surna>e Pacheco durin8 such proceedin8s andwhen he testiBed, he 8a7e his na>e as Santia8o 'atchalian Pacheco( This is an

incontro7ertible proof that he reco8ni;ed the le8iti>ate union of his father and

>other(

#n 1N February 19=0, Santia8o was recalled to be confronted re his clai> as to the

nu>ber of his childrenK he testiBed thusA

n your testi>ony on February 12, this year, you na>ed as your children thefollowin8A ose, 'loria, Francisco, lena and %enGa>in, all born in &>oy, arran8ed

accordin8 to the order of their a8es( 4owe7er, in your For> 1 when you secured

your &"R in 19)1, you >entioned only ose 'atchalian and lena 'atchalian( 6hy,

what is the reason why in this for> that you Blled up in 19)1, you >entioned only

ose and lena

& That for> a> not the one who Blled it because that is not >y handwritin8( t

is the handwritin8 of >y broCer or the clerC of >y broCer( 4owe7er, when they

prepared that >entioned >y children na>ed ose, 'loria, Francisco, lena in apiece of paper which 8a7e to hi>, eHcept %enGa>in(

6hy did you not >ention %enGa>in in the list



& %ecause he was not yet bapti;ed then( -Transcript, p( :, &nneH I2I of


The eHplanation is 7ery i>sy and does not deser7e the respect of a passin8 8lance(

There is no showin8 that 'atchalian tooC any i>>ediate deBnite positi7e step

a8ainst the = uly 19=2 decision and the warrant of eHclusion(

t was only so>eti>e in 19:3, or ele7en years after, that he and others co7ered by

the warrant of eHpulsion Bled a >otion for re*hearin8 with the %oard of Special

nLuiry( There has been no eHplanation for the unreasonable delay in the Blin8 of the

>otion( t >ay be sur>ised that it was due to his >inority, considerin8 that he wasalle8edly only twel7e years old when he arri7ed in !anila fro> 4on8Con8 on 2: une

19=1( %ut, such >inority was no obstacle to the Blin8 of any re>edial action for and

in his behalf(

The action taCen by and the reco>>endation of the %oard of Special nLuiry of 1E

!arch 19:3 to the then &ctin8 "o>>issioner ictor $ituda for the re7ersal of the

uly =, 19=2 decision of the %oard of "o>>issioners were not only hi8hly

ano>alous, irre8ular and i>proper, it was done without any se>blance of authority(

The %oard of Special nLuiry did not ha7e the power to re7iew, >odify or re7erse a

+ecision of the %oard of "o>>issioners rendered about ele7en years earlier( Then

&ctin8 "o>>issioner ictor $ituda, actin8 alone, did not liCewise ha7e the power or

authority to appro7e the reco>>endation of said %oard, to re7i7e andDor rea@r>

the uly =, 19=1 decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry, to re7erse, and nullify, the

+ecision of = uly 19=2 of the %oard of "o>>issioners, and to order the ad>ission

of 6illia> 'atchalian as a Filipino citi;en( Pursuant to Sec( 2= -b. of "(&( $o( =13, as

a>ended -The Philippine >>i8ration &ct of 19E0., only the %oard of

"o>>issioners can act on the reco>>endation, if at all it was le8ally and 7alidly

done( The %oard of "o>>issioners is co>posed of the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration

and the two +eputy "o>>issioners( n the absence of any >e>ber of the %oard,

the +epart>ent 4ead shall desi8nate an o@cer or e>ployee in the %ureau of>>i8ration to ser7e as >e>ber thereof( n any case co>in8 before it, the decision

of any two >e>bers shall pre7ail( -Sec( N, "(&( $o( =13 as a>ended.( The

+epart>ent 4ead referred to is the Secretary of ustice since the "o>>ission is, for

ad>inistrati7e purposes, under the super7ision and control of the +epart>ent of

ustice(



The decision then of &ctin8 "o>>issioner $ituda was 7oid and in7alid ab initio( n

7iew thereof, the rationali;ation in the ponencia that the issue could be re*opened

since the decision of the %oard of "o>>issioners of = uly 19=2 did not constitute

res Gudicata is irrele7ant( %ut e7en if it is to be conceded that the = uly 19=2

decision did not constitute res Gudicata, Bnd it both stran8e and illo8ical to 8i7e full

faith and credit to the unilateral action of !r( $ituda and to use it to bar the %oardsfro> eHercisin8 its power and Gurisdiction o7er 6illia> 'atchalian(

&ssu>in8 that indeed 6illia> is the 8randson of Santia8o, Bnd it rather stran8e

why Santia8o did not >ention hi> in his testi>ony before the "iti;enship 7aluation

%oard( &t that ti>e 6illia> was already ele7en years old( t is lo8ical to presu>e

that the proceedin8 initiated by Santia8o was principally for the beneBt of his

alle8ed children and 8randchildren( t was, as subseLuent e7ents pro7ed, intended

to prepare the le8al basis for their entry into the country as Filipino citi;ens( Thus,

ele7en >onths after he obtained a fa7orable decision fro> the %oard, and on twosuccessi7e dates, his alle8ed children and 8randchildren entered the country( #n 2)

une 19=1 his alle8ed children ose, lena, %enGa>in, and his alle8ed 8randchildren

Pedro and uan arri7ed fro> 4on8Con8( #n 2: une 19=1, his alle8ed dau8hter

'loria and son Francisco with his alle8ed children 6illia> and ohnson also arri7ed

fro> 4on8Con8( -pp( E*), Petition.(

That he has continuously resided in the Philippines since 19=1K he is >arried to Tin8

+ee 4ua on uly 1, 19:3, and his >arria8e contract shows that he is a Filipino

citi;enK he holds passports and earlier passports as a FilipinoK he is a re8istered7oter of alen;uela, !etro !anila where he has lon8 resided and eHercised his ri8ht

of suJra8eK he is en8a8ed in business in the Philippines since 19:3, and is a

directorDo@cer of the nternational Poly>er "orp( and Rope>an nternational "orp(

as a Filipino, and that the co>panies he runs and in which he has a controllin8

in7est>ent pro7ided a li7elihood to E,000 e>ployees and approHi>ately 2),000

dependentsK he is a taHpayerK and he has continuously enGoyed the status of Filipino

citi;enship, dischar8ed his responsibility as such until petitionin8 %oards initiated

the deportation proceedin8s a8ainst hi>, are not of any help to 6illia> 'atchalian(

For, they neither confer nor stren8then his clai> of Filipino citi;enship since they are

all rooted on the ille8al and 7oid decision of then &ctin8 "o>>issioner ictor $ituda

of 1) !arch 19:3( & decision which is 7oid and in7alid ab initio cannot be a source

of 7alid acts( $either can such substanti7e inBr>ity be cured by salutary acts that

tend to conBr> the status conferred by the 7oid decision(



n the li8ht of the fore8oin8, it follows that the warrant of eHclusion issued a8ainst

6illia> 'atchalian pursuant to and by 7irtue of the = uly 19=2 +ecision of the

%oard of "o>>issioners subsists and re>ains 7alid and enforceable(

disa8ree with the 7iew ad7anced in the ponencia that the State can no lon8er

enforce the warrant of eHclusion because it is already barred by prescription

considerin8 that Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct states that deportation Ishall

not be eJected ( ( ( unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within

B7e -). years after the cause of deportation arises(I

Said para8raph -b. of Section 3: reads in full as followsA

-b. +eportation >ay be eJected under clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12 para8raph -a.

of this section at any ti>e after entry, but shall not be eJected under any other

clause unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within B7e years

after the cause of deportation arises( +eportation under clauses 3 and E shall not be

eJected if the court or Gud8e thereof, when sentencin8 the alien, shall reco>>end

to the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration that the alien be not deported( -&s a>ended by

Sec( 13, R(&( $o( )03.( ->phasis supplied.(

$ote that the B7e*year period applies only to clauses other than 2, :, N, 11 and 12

of para8raph -a. of the Section( n respect to clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12, the

li>itation does not apply( These clauses read as followsA

-2. &ny alien who enters the Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this &ct, who

was not lawfully ad>issible at the ti>e of entryK

HHH HHH HHH

-:. &ny alien who re>ains in the Philippines in 7iolation of any li>itation or

condition under which he was ad>itted as a non* i>>i8rantK



-N. &ny alien who belie7es in, ad7ises, ad7ocates or teaches the o7erthrow by

force and 7iolence of the 'o7ern>ent of the Philippines, or of constituted law and

authority, or who disbelie7es in or is opposed to or8ani;ed 8o7ern>ent, or who

ad7ises, ad7ocates, or teaches the assault or assassination of public o@cials

because of their o@ce, or who ad7ises, ad7ocates, or teaches the unlawful

destruction of property, or who is a >e>ber of or a@liated with any or8ani;ationentertainin8, ad7ocatin8 or teachin8 such doctrines, or who in any >anner

whatsoe7er lends assistance, Bnancial or otherwise, to the disse>ination of such

doctrinesK

HHH HHH HHH

-11. &ny alien who en8a8es in proBteerin8, hoardin8, or blacC*>arCetin8,

independent of any cri>inal action which >ay be brou8ht a8ainst hi>K

-12. &ny alien who is con7icted of any oJense penali;ed under "o>>onwealth &ct

$u>bered Four 4undred and Se7enty*Three, otherwise Cnown as the Re7ised

$aturali;ation /aws of the Philippines, or any law relatin8 to acLuisition of Philippine

citi;enshipK

HHH HHH HHH

!r( 'atchalian is co7ered by clause -2.K besides, the warrant for his eHclusion was

issued within a period of B7e years followin8 his entry(

/a> Shee 7s( %en8;on -93 Phil( 10=). is not applicable to !r( 'atchalian( n issue in

that case was the deportation of a >inor whose >other fraudulently entered the

Philippines by usin8 the na>e of a resident "hinese >erchant who is not her lawful

husband but a8ainst who> no deportation proceedin8s was initiated within B7eyears followin8 her entry( Said >other did in fact acLuire per>anent residence

status( Further>ore, the >inors >other ne7er clai>ed to be a Filipino citi;en(

$ 6 #F &// T4 F#R'#$', 7ote to 'R&$T the petition in '(R( $os( 9)122*

23, ST &S+ the Luestioned orders of respondents ud8e oselito +ela Rosa and



ud8e Teresita +i;on "apulon8 as ha7in8 been issued beyond their Gurisdiction,

#R+R the +S!SS&/ of "i7il "ase $os( 90*)E21E of the Re8ional Trial "ourt of

!anila and 3E31**90 of the Re8ional Trial "ourt of alen;uela, !etro !anila and to

+S!SS for lacC of >erit the "#U$TR*PTT#$(

F/"&$#, (, dissentin8A

re8ret a> unable to Goin the opinion written by >y distin8uished brother in the

"ourt, !r( ustice &(&( %idin, and , therefore, undertaCe to sub>it this separate

opinion(

For con7enience, the followin8 is a precis of the >atters discussed in detail below(

1( a8ree that the 6arrant of &rrest dated 1E &u8ust 1990 is defecti7e in its

lan8ua8e( The surroundin8 facts, howe7er, >aCe Luite clear that an a>ended

warrant of arrest or >ission order, or a new one correctly worded, >ay be issued by

>>i8ration "o>>issioner +o>in8o for the purpose of carryin8 out an eHistin8 and

7alid 6arrant of Hclusion co7erin8 respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants for ad>ission(

2( The = uly 19=2 +ecision of the %oard of "o>>issioners -I%#"I. and 6arrant

of Hclusion re>ain 7alid and eJecti7e and enforceable a8ainst respondent 6illia>

'atchalian, and his co*applicants for that >atter( That +ecision re7ersed a = uly

19=1 decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry -I%SI. and held that respondent

6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants failed to subtantiate and pro7e their clai>

to Philippine citi;enship in 19=1( Respondent 6illia> 'atchalian does not clai>

Philippine citi;enship by any >ode of entitle>ent subseLuent to his application forentry as a citi;en of the Philippines in 19=1, i(e(, by any act or circu>stance

subseLuent to his birth and supposed Bliation as a le8iti>ate son of Francisco

'atchalian, also a supposed citi;en of the Philippines(



3( n its +ecision in &rocha 7s( i7o, 1 the Supre>e "ourt upheld the 7alidity and

le8al eJect of the = uly 19=2 +ecision of the %#" and the 6arrant of Hclusion not

only a8ainst Pedro 'atchalian, the particular 'atchalian who was taCen into custody

by i>>i8ration authorities in 19=), but also a8ainst Pedros co*applicants, which

include respondent 6illia> 'atchalian( The 7alidity of the clai> to Philippine

citi;enship by Pedro 'atchalian, as a supposed descendant of Santia8o 'atchalian,alle8edly a natural born citi;en of the Philippines, was directly placed in issue in the

19=1*19=2 proceedin8s before the %S and the %#", and by the Solicitor 'eneral

and Pedro 'atchalian in &rocha 7s( i7o -supra.( n upholdin8 the 7alidity and le8al

eJect of the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision that the 'atchalian applicants had not

substantiated their clai> to Philippine citi;enship, this "ourt in eJect ruled that the

'atchalian applicants were not Philippine citi;ens, whate7er their true nationality

>i8ht be(

E( Should this "ourt now deter>ine to eHa>ine once >ore the clai> toPhilippine citi;enship of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, a detailed eHa>ination of

the facts, includin8 the supposed status of Santia8o 'atchalian as a natural born

Philippine citi;enship, shows that those clai>s to Philippine citi;enship were indeed

not pro7en by respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants( Since

respondent 6illia> 'atchalian does not clai> to ha7e been naturali;ed as a

Philippine citi;en after rendition of the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision, he >ust

accordin8ly be held to be not a Philippine citi;en(

)( Should the le8al results thus reached see> harsh to so>e, respectfullysub>it that the re>edy lies not with this "ourt which is char8ed with the application

of the law as it is in fact written, but with the political branches of the 'o7ern>ent(

t is those depart>ents of 'o7ern>ent which >ust consider the desirability and

wisdo> of enactin8 le8islation pro7idin8 for the le8ali;ation of the entry and stay of

aliens who >ay be in the sa>e situation as respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his

co*applicants(

1( Petitioner ar8ues that respondent 6illia> 'atchalians arrest follows as a

>atter of IconseLuenceI of the 6arrant of Hclusion issued by the %#" on = uly

19=2( This is opposed by respondent 'atchalian upon the 8round that the !ission



#rder or 6arrant of &rrest does not >ention that it is issued pursuant to a Bnal

order of deportation or 6arrant of Hclusion(

The !ission #rder or 6arrant of &rrest dated 1E &u8ust 1990 issued by petitioner

"o>>issioner +o>in8o, "+, reads in part as followsA

ntelli8ence #@cersD&8entsA &ll Tea>s

Tea> $o(

SubGectA 6illia>, uan, Francisco, ose, %enGa>in, onathan, Pedro, 'loria, lena,all surna>ed 'atchalian

&ddressA %8y( "anu>ay, alen;uela, !(!(

HHH HHH HHH

1( !aCe a warrantless arrest under the Rules of "ri>inal Procedure, Rule 113,

Section ), for 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ct, Section 3:, para( aK Secs( E) and E=


2( !aCe a warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest under Rule 12),

Section 12(

3( +eli7er the suspect to the ntelli8ence +i7ision and i>>ediately conductcustodial interro8ation, after warnin8 the suspect that he has a ri8ht to re>ain

silent and a ri8ht to counselK



E( Prepare and Ble an a@da7it of arrest with the Special Prosecutors #@ce and,

in case of a search, prepare and Ble an in7entory of the properties sei;ed, 7eriBed

under oath followin8 #@ce !e>orandu> #rder $o( E)

HHH HHH HHH

The abo7e !ission #rder >erely referred to Section 3: -a. of the >>i8ration &ct,

as a>ended, and to Sections E) and E= of the &d>inistrati7e "ode -should be

>>i8ration /aw., and that its wordin8 su88ests that the arrest is sou8ht to be

carried out for the purpose of carryin8 out a preli>inary in7esti8ation or custodial

interro8ation rather than for the purpose of enforcin8 a Bnal order of deportation or

warrant of eHclusion( !ore speciBcally, the !ission #rder failed to >ention the = uly

19=2 %#" +ecision and 6arrant of Hclusion( &t the sa>e ti>e, there is no

8ainsayin8 the fact that the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision and 6arrant of Hclusion do

eHist and beca>e Bnal and, as discussed in detail below, re>ain 7alid and eJecti7e(

t should be noted also that by = Septe>ber 1990, Special Prosecutor !abolo had

Bled a !anifestation or !otion before the %ureau of >>i8ration eHplicitly referrin8

to the 6arrant of Hclusion issued a8ainst respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his

ori8inal co*applicants for ad>ission in 19=1, which had been passed upon in &rocha

7s( i7o -supra., and ar8ued that there was, therefore, no lon8er any need to

adduce e7idence in support of the char8es a8ainst respondent 6illia> 'atchalian(

Thus it appears to >e that the 6arrant of &rrest or !ission #rder dated 1) &u8ust

1990, ineptly worded as it is, >ay be a>ended so as to refer eHplicitly to the

>entioned 6arrant of Hclusion, or a new warrant of arrest or >ission order issued

si>ilarly eHplicitly referrin8 to the 6arrant of Hclusion(

2( t is indispensably necessary to refer to the 6arrant of Hclusion of = uly

19=2 which read as followsA

64R&S, upon re7iew, >otu proprio of the proceedin8s had on the application for

ad>ission as Philippine citi;ens of #S '&T"4&/&$, /$& '&T"4&/&$,

%$&!$ '&T"4&/&$, U&$ '&T"4&/&$, P+R# '&T"4&/&$, '/#R&

'&T"4&/&$, FR&$"S"# '&T"4&/&$, 6//&! '&T"4&/&$, and #4$S#$

'&T"4&/&$, the %oard of "o>>issioners found the> not entitled to ad>ission as



Filipinos in a +ecision, dated uly =, 19=2, and ordered their eHclusion as persons

not properly docu>entedK

&$+ 64R&S, the +ecision of the %oard of "o>>issioners, dated = uly 19=2,

orderin8 the eHclusion of abo7e*na>ed applicants, has now beco>e Bnal and

eHecutory(

$#6 T4RF#R, by 7irtue of the authority 7ested in the undersi8ned by law, you

are hereby ordered to eHclude the aforena>ed indi7iduals and cause their re>o7al

fro> this country to the port where they ca>e or to the port of the country of which

they are nationals, on the Brst a7ailable transportation, in accordance with law(

->phasis supplied.

t should be noted that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian was a party to the 19=1*19=2

proceedin8s before the %ureau of >>i8ration which proceedin8s cul>inated in the

= uly 19=2 +ecision of the %#" and the aforeLuoted 6arrant of Hclusion(

t is, howe7er, insisted by respondent 6illia> 'atchalian that the 6arrant of

Hclusion >ay no lon8er be eHecuted or i>ple>ented as a8ainst hi> in 7iew of the

passa8e of approHi>ately twenty*ei8ht -2N. years since the issuance of such

6arrant( Respondent 'atchalian here relies upon Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration

&ct which states thatA

Sec( 3: -b.( +eportation >ay be eJected under clauses 2, 3, :, N, 11 and 12 of the

Par( -a. of this Section at any ti>e after entry, but shall not be eJected under any

other clauses unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within B7e

-). years after the cause for deportation arises ( ( ( ->phasis supplied.

Ha>ination of the abo7e Luoted Section 3: -b. shows that the B7e -). year*li>itation is applicable only where deportation is sou8ht to be eJected under

clauses of Section 3: -a. other than clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12K that where

deportation or eHclusion is sou8ht to be eJected under clauses 2, :, N 11 and 12 of

Section 3: -a., no period of li>itation is applicableK and that, to the contrary,

deportation or eHclusion >ay be eJected Iat any ti>e after entry(I



Ha>ination of conte>poraneous facts shows that the 'o7ern>ent has sou8ht to

eJect the eHclusion and deportation of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian upon the

8round that he had entered the country as a citi;en of the Philippines when he was

not lawfully ad>issible as such at the ti>e of entry under Section 3: -a. -2., since

the %#" had held hi> and the other 'atchalians there in7ol7ed as not properly

docu>ented for ad>ission, under Section 29 -a. -1:. of the >>i8ration &ct, asa>ended( #n : uly 1990, the &ctin8 +irector of the $ational %ureau of n7esti8ation

-I$%I. initiated the proceedin8s i>>ediately before us by writin8 to the Secretary

of ustice reco>>endin8 that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, and his co*applicants

co7ered by the 6arrant of Hclusion dated = uly 19=2, be char8ed withA Iiolation

of Section 3: -a., para8raphs 1 and 2, in relation to Section E) -c., -d. and -e. of

"o>>onwealth &ct =13 as a>ended, also Cnown as the >>i8ration &ct of 19E0(I

The Secretary of ustice endorsed this reco>>endation to >>i8ration

"o>>issioner +o>in8o for in7esti8ation and i>>ediate action( #n 20 &u8ust 1990,

Special Prosecutor !abolo Bled a char8e sheet a8ainst respondent 6illia>

'atchalian which speciBed the followin8 char8esA

The respondent is an alien national who unlawfully 8ained entry into the Philippines

without 7alid tra7el docu>ent in 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ctK Sec( 3: par( a, sub

pars( -1. and -2.K

That respondent bein8 an alien >isrepresented hi>self as Philippine "iti;en by false

state>ents and fraudulent docu>ents in 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ct, Sec( E),

par( -c., -d. and -e.(

That respondent bein8 an alien national is an undocu>ented person classiBed as

eHcludable under the >>i8ration &ct, Sec( 29 -a. sub par( -1:.(

HHH HHH HHH

->phasis supplied.

Section 3: -a. -1. and -2., of "o>>onwealth &ct $o( =13, as a>ended, pro7ides as

followsA



Sec( 3: -a.( The followin8 aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the



deter>ination by the %oard of "o>>issioners of the eHistence of the 8round for

deportation as char8ed a8ainst the alien(

-1. &ny alien who enters the Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this act by

>eans of false and >isleadin8 state>ents or without inspection and ad>ission by

the >>i8ration authorities at a desi8nated port of entry or at any place other than

at a desi8nated port of entryK -&s a>ended by Republic &ct $o( )03.(

-2. &n alien who enters the Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this act, who

was not lawfully ad>issible at the ti>e of entry(

HHH HHH HHH

->phasis supplied.

Section 3: -a. -2., Luoted abo7e, relates bacC to Section 29 -a. of the >>i8ration

&ct, as a>ended, which lists the classes of alien eHcluded fro> entry in thePhilippines, as followsA

Sec( 29( -a.( The followin8 classes of aliens shall be eHcluded fro> entry into the

PhilippinesK

HHH HHH HHH

-1:. Persons not properly docu>ented for ad>ission as >ay be reLuired under the

pro7isions of this act( ->phasis supplied.



Thus, in the instant case, the net result is that no ti>e li>itation is applicable in

respect of the carryin8 out of the 6arrant of Hclusion issued in 19=2(

& little reection su@ces to show why this >ust be so( 6hat was in7ol7ed in 19=1

when the supposed children and 8randchildren of Santia8o 'atchalian Brst

descended upon the Philippines, was the ri8ht of a person clai>in8 to be a

Philippine citi;en to enter for the Brst ti>e and reside in the Philippines( #n the part

of the 'o7ern>ent, what was at staCe was the ri8ht to eHclude fro> the country

persons who had clai>ed the ri8ht to enter the country as Philippine citi;ens but

who had failed to substantiate such clai>ed status( &liens seeCin8 entry into the

Philippines do not acLuire the ri8ht to be ad>itted into the country by the si>ple

passa8e of ti>e( Hclusion of persons found not to be entitled to ad>ission as

Philippine citi;ens, >ust be distin8uished fro> the deportation of aliens, who, after

ha7in8 been initially lawfully ad>itted into the Philippines, co>>itted acts which

rendered the> liable to deportation(

$or>ally, aliens eHcluded are i>>ediately sent bacC to their country of ori8in( 2

This is so in cases where the alien has not yet 8ained a foothold into the country

and is still seeCin8 physical ad>ittance( 4owe7er, when the alien had already

physically 8ained entry but such entry is later found unlawful or de7oid of le8al

basis, the alien can be eHcluded any ti>e after it is found that he was not lawfully

ad>issible at the ti>e of his entry( Technically, the alien in this case is bein8

eHcludedK howe7er, the rules on deportation can be >ade to apply to hi> in 7iew of

the fact that the cause for his eHclusion is disco7ered only after he had 8ainedphysical entry(

t is worth notin8 at this point that in &rocha 7s( i7o -supra., this "ourt upheld the =

uly 19=2 #rder of the %#" and the application of the 6arrant of Hclusion, in

respect of Pedro 'atchalian, e7en thou8h >ore than B7e -). years had elapsed by

the ti>e the "ourts +ecision was pro>ul8ated on 2= #ctober 19=:(

Thou8h respondent 6illia> 'atchalian is physically inside the country, it is the8o7ern>ents basic position that he was ne7er lawfully ad>itted into the country,

ha7in8 failed to pro7e his clai> of Philippine citi;enship, and hence the 6arrant of

Hclusion of = uly 19=2, or a new 6arrant of Hclusion for that >atter, >ay be

eHecuted Iat any ti>eI under Section 3: -b.( t is the correctness of that basic

position which >ust be ascertained and in that ascertain>ent, the >ere passa8e of



ti>e is Luite peripheral in rele7ance considerin8 the eHpress lan8ua8e of Section 3:

-b.(

!y distin8uished brother, %idin, (, Bnally in7oCes &ct $o( 332=, and on the basis of

Section 1 thereof, would hold that where the arrest for purpose of deportation is

>ade >ore than B7e -). years after the cause for deportation arose, the

prescripti7e period of ei8ht -N. years should be applied( &ct $o( 332= which tooC

eJect on E +ece>ber 192=, establishes prescripti7e periods in respect of cri>inal

prosecutions for 7iolations penali;ed not by the Re7ised Penal "ode but rather by

special acts which do not otherwise establish a period of prescription( n other

words, &ct $o( 332= establishes a statute of li>itations for the institution of cri>inal

proceedin8s( t is, howe7er, Luite settled that deportation proceedin8s cannot be

assi>ilated to cri>inal prosecutions for 7iolation either of the Re7ised Penal "ode or

of special statutes( 3 !oreo7er, &ct $o( 332= purports to be applicable only where

the special act itself has not established an applicable statute of li>itations forcri>inal proceedin8s( t cannot, howe7er, be said that &rticle 3: -b. of the

>>i8ration &ct -Luoted earlier. has not established an applicable statute of

li>itations( For, precisely, Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct states that

deportation >ay be eJected under certain clauses of Section 3: -a. Iat any ti>e

after entry(I #ne of those instances is, precisely, deportation upon the 8round

speciBed in "lause -2. of 3: -a. which relates to Iany alien who enters the

Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this act, who was not lawfully ad>issible at

the ti>e of entry(I Thus, the >>i8ration &ct, far fro> failin8 to specify a

prescripti7e period for deportation under Section 3: -a. -2., eHpressly authori;es

deportation under such 8round Iat any ti>e after entry(I t is, thus, 7ery di@cult to

see how &ct $o( 332= could apply at all to the instant case(

Finally, we >ust recall once >ore that what is actually in7ol7ed in the case at bar is

eHclusion, not deportation(

3( t is ur8ed by the 8o7ern>ent that &rocha 7s( i7o -supra. has already

resol7ed the clai> to Philippine citi;enship of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian

ad7ersely to hi> and that such rulin8 constitutes res Gudicata( Upon the other hand,respondent 6illia> 'atchalian 7ehe>ently ar8ues that neither the = uly 19=2

%#"s +ecision nor &rocha deBnitely settled the Luestion of his citi;enship(

!y respectful sub>ission is that respondent 6illia> 'atchalians ar8u>ent

constitutes a hi8hly selecti7e readin8 of both the %#" +ecision and the +ecision in



&rocha 6ritten by (%(/( Reyes, ( for a unani>ous court( The = uly 19=2 +ecision of

the %#", in its dispositi7e portion, reads as followsA

$ 6 #F T4 F#R'#$' "#$S+R&T#$S, this %oard Bnds and hereby holds

that the applicants ose 'atchalian, lena 'atchalian, %enGa>in 'atchalian, uan

'atchalian, Pedro 'atchalian, 'loria 'atchalian, Francisco 'atchalian, 6illia>

'atchalian and ohnson 'atchalianQ herein ha7e not satisfactorily pro7ed their clai>

to Philippine citi;enship and therefore the +ecision of the %oard of Special nLuiry,

dated uly =, 19=1 ad>ittin8 the> as Filipinos is hereby re7ersed, and said

applicants should be, as they are hereby ordered eHcluded as persons not properly

docu>ented(

S# #R+R+( ->phasis supplied.

Since respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants in 19=1 clai>ed the ri8ht

to enter the country as Philippine citi;ens, deter>ination of their ri8ht to enter the

Philippines thus indispensably in7ol7ed the resolution of their clai> to Philippine

citi;enship( n other words, the deter>ination of that citi;enship in the instant case

was not a >ere incident of the caseK it was rather the central and indeed the only

issue that had to be resol7ed by the %#"( Re7iew of the 19=1 proceedin8s before

the %S shows that the sole issue before it was the supposed Philippine citi;enship of

the applicants( Thus, the 7ery sa>e issue of clai>ed Philippine citi;enship was

resol7ed by the %#" when it re7ersed the = uly 19=1 decision of the %S( This case>ay be distin8uished fro> other types of cases, e(8(, applications for public utility

franchises, petitions for chan8e of na>e, applications for re8istration as 7oter, Blin8

of certiBcates of candidacy for an electi7e position, etc(, where the central issue is

not citi;enship althou8h resolution of that issue reLuires a deter>ination of the

citi;enship of the applicant, candidate or petitioner(

The rulin8 of the %#" that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants for

ad>ission as Philippine citi;ens had not satisfactorily pro7ed their clai> to

Philippine citi;enship, can only be reasonably read as a holdin8 that respondent6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants were not Philippine citi;ens, whate7er their

true nationality or nationalities >i8ht be( Thus, it appears to be >erely se>antic

play to ar8ue, as respondent 6illia> 'atchalian ar8ues, that the 19=2 %#" +ecision

did not cate8orically hold hi> to be an IalienI and that the %#" had >erely held

hi> and his co*applicants as Inot properly docu>ented(I The phrase Inot properly

docu>entedI was strictly and technically correct( For 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*



applicants had presented the>sel7es as Philippine citi;ens and as such entitled to

ad>ission into the country( Since the %#" reGected their clai>s to Philippine

citi;enship, 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants were non*Filipinos Inot properly

docu>ented for ad>issionI under Section 29 -a. -1:., >>i8ration &ct as a>ended(

E( n &rocha 7s( i7o -supra., the Supre>e "ourt had before it the followin8

ite>sA

1( The = uly 19=1 +ecision of the %S which allowed the entry of respondent

'atchalian and his co*applicants as citi;ens of the PhilippinesK

2( & split %#" +ecision appro7in8 the = uly 19=1 %S decision, which had beenInotedI by two -2. "o>>issioners but reGected by "o>>issioner 'alan8 on 1E and

2= uly 19=1 and 21 &u8ust 19=1, respecti7elyK

3( The = uly 19=2 +ecision of the %#" in which the %#" had re7iewed >otu

proprio the 'atchalian proceedin8s before the %S and re7ersed the %S decision of

= uly 19=1K

E( The 6arrant of Hclusion dated = uly 19=2 issued pursuant to the = uly 19=2+ecision of the %#"K and

)( & decision of the !anila "ourt of First nstance dated 31 uly 19=), rendered

in a habeas corpus proceedin8 brou8ht to eJect the release of Pedro 'atchalian

who had been taCen into custody by i>>i8ration o@cials pursuant to the = uly

19=2 6arrant of Hclusion(

The "ourt of First nstance -I"FI. decision ordered Pedro 'atchalians release upon

the 8round that the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision had been issued beyond the one -1.

year period for re7iew of the %S decision of = uly 19=1( The "F decision was

re7ersed and nulliBed by the Supre>e "ourt(



The Supre>e "ourt held that the %#" +ecision of = uly 19=2 had not been

antedated and that it was 7alid and eJecti7e to re7erse and nullify the %S order

8rantin8 ad>ission to the 'atchalians as citi;ens of the Philippines(

The "ourt also held that the split %#" decision of uly*&u8ust 19=1 did not operate

to conBr> and render Bnal the %S decision of = uly 19=1, the split decision bein8

null and 7oid because it had not been rendered by the %#" as a body(

The "ourt further reGected Pedro 'atchalians ar8u>ent that he was not bound by

the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecisionA

t is ar8ued for the appellee that the >inutes in Hh( )*& refer only to the cases of'loria, Francisco and %enGa>in 'atchalian( %ut the desi8nation of the case is I'loria

'atchalian, et al(I $o reason is shown why the case of these three should be

considered and 7oted upon separately, considerin8 that the clai>s to citi;enship

and entry of all were based on the sa>e circu>stances, applicants bein8 the

descendants of one Santia8o 'atchalian, a Filipino and that all their applications for

entry were in fact Gointly resol7ed by the %oard of nLuiry in one sin8le decision

-&nneH 1, petition, '(R( $o( /*2ENEE.( E

respectfully sub>it that the abo7e*Luoted rulin8 in &rocha disposes of the

contention here bein8 >ade by respondent 6illia> 'atchalian that he is not bound

by the +ecision in &rocha 7s( i7o, &rocha held that the 19=2 %#" +ecision was

7alid and eJecti7e and 6illia> was certainly one of the applicants for ad>ission in

the proceedin8s which be8an in 19=1 before the %S(

Respondent 6illia> 'atchalian contends that the "ourt in &rocha did not Bnd hi>

nor any of his co*applicants to be aliens and that all the "ourt did was to hold that

the = uly 19=2 %oard of "o>>issioners decision had not been antedated( This

contention cannot be taCen seriously( &s has already been pointed out se7eral

ti>es, the 19=2 %oard of "o>>issioners decision held that 6illia> 'atchalian and

his ei8ht -N. other co*applicants for ad>ission had not pro7ed their clai> to

Philippine citi;enshipK not bein8 Filipinos, they >ust ha7e been aliens, to be

eHcluded as persons not properly docu>ented( !oreo7er, a re7iew of the Rollo in

&rocha 7s( i7o shows that the parties there had eHpressly raised the issue of the

citi;enship of Pedro 'atchalian in their pleadin8s( The Solicitor 'eneral, in his Bfth

assi8n>ent of error, ar8ued that the "ourt of First nstance had erred in declarin8



Pedro 'atchalian a Filipino, and si>ultaneously ur8ed that the = uly 19=2 decision

of the %oard of "o>>issioners was Luite correct( Pedro 'atchalian, upon the other

hand, contended that precisely because he was a Filipino, the %ureau of

>>i8ration had no Gurisdiction to eHclude hi>( )

The "ourt also said in &rochaA

Finally, it is well to note that appellee did not tra7erse the alle8ation of appellant

"o>>issioners in their return to the writ of 4abeas "orpus that appellee Pedro

'atchalian 8ained entry on the stren8th of a for8ed cable8ra>, purportedly si8ned

by the for>er Secretary of Forei8n &Jairs FeliHberto Serrano, and apparently

authori;in8 appellees docu>entation as a Filipino -par( 3aQ of Return, "(F(( Rec(,

pp( 1)*1=.( Such failure to deny i>ports ad>ission of its truth by the appellee,

establishes that his entry was irre8ular( $either has he appealed the decision of the

"o>>issioners of >>i8ration to the +epart>ent 4ead( =

Since the physical entry of Pedro 'atchalian was eJected si>ultaneously with that

of Francisco and 6illia> 'atchalian, on eHactly the sa>e basis and on the stren8th

of the sa>e for8ed cable8ra> alle8edly fro> then Secretary of Forei8n &Jairs

FeliHberto Serrano, it >ust follow that the entry of Francisco and 6illia> 'atchalian

was si>ilarly irre8ular( The applications for ad>ission of the nine -9. 'atchalians

were all Gointly resol7ed by the %S on = uly 19=1 on the identical basis that they

were all descendants of Santia8o 'atchalian, a supposed natural born Philippineciti;en(

)( The purported re7ersal of the 19=2 %#" +ecision by "o>>issioner $ituda in

19:3, cannot be 8i7en any eJect( & close eHa>ination of the sa>e re7eals that

such purported re7ersal was hi8hly irre8ular(

Respondent 6illia> 'atchalian alle8es that !r( $ituda, bein8 in 19:3 &ctin8

"o>>issioner of >>i8ration, had the authority to re7erse the %#" +ecision of =

uly 19=2, since he -$ituda. had i>>ediate control, direction and super7ision of all

o@cers, clerCs and e>ployees of the %ureau of >>i8ration( "ontrol >eans,

respondent 'atchalian continues, the power to alter or >odify or nullify or set aside

what a subordinate o@cer had done in the perfor>ance of his duties and to

substitute the Gud8>ent of the for>er for that of the latter( :



Respondent 'atchalians 7iew is ob7iously awed( The "o>>issioners power of

control o7er the o@cers and e>ployees of the %ureau of >>i8ration cannot be

co>pared to the power of control and super7ision 7ested by the "onstitution in the

President of the Philippines -which was what 4a> was all about., for the"o>>issioners 8eneral power of control cannot be said to include the power to

re7iew and set aside the prior Bnal decision reached by the %#"( The "o>>issioner

of >>i8ration, actin8 alone, cannot be re8arded as an authority hi8her than the

%#" itself -constituted by the "o>>issioner and the two 2Q &ssociate

"o>>issioners., in respect of >atters 7ested by the 8o7ernin8 statute in such

%oard itself( #ne of these >atters is precisely the hearin8 and decidin8 of appeals

fro> decisions of the %S, and the >otu proprio re7iew of the entire proceedin8s of a

case within one -1. year fro> the pro>ul8ation of a decision by the %S( N

Respondent 'atchalian points to Section 29 -b. of the >>i8ration &ct as a>ended,

as e>powerin8 $ituda to re7erse the 19=2 %#" +ecision( Section 29 -b. reads as

followsA

Section 29( ( ( (

HHH HHH HHH

-b. $otwithstandin8 the pro7isions of this section, the "o>>issioner of

>>i8ration, in his discretion, >ay per>it to enter -sic. any alien properly

docu>ented, who is subGect to eHclusion under this section, but who is O

-1. an alien lawfully resident in the Philippines who is returnin8 fro> a te>porary

7isit abroadK

-2. an alien applyin8 for te>porary ad>ission(

t is di@cult to understand respondents ar8u>ent( For one thin8, Section 29 -b.

relates to an Ialien properly docu>entedI while respondent 'atchalian precisely



clai>s to be a citi;en of the Philippines rather than a resident alien returnin8 fro> a

te>porary 7isit abroad or an alien applyin8 for te>porary ad>ission(

t should be recalled that $itudas 19:3 +ecision appro7ed a rulin8 rendered by a

%oard of Special nLuiry in 19:3 that respondent 'atchalian was properly

docu>ented, a rulin8 which was precipitated by a IPetition for Rehearin8I Bled by

respondent 'atchalian and his co*applicants in N !arch 19:2 before the %S( There

are a nu>ber of ob7ious defects in the action of the %S( Firstly, the >otion for

rehearin8 was Bled way out of ti>e( Rule 3, % 22 of the >>i8ration Rules and

Re8ulations of 1 anuary 19E1 pro7ides as followsA

&t any ti>e before the alien is deported, but not later than se7en days fro> the

date he recei7es notice of the decision on appeal of the %oard of "o>>issioners,

the applicant or his attorney or counsel >ay Ble a petition for rehearin8 only on the

8round of newly disco7ered e7idence( Such petition shall be in writin8 and shall set

forth the nature of the e7idence disco7ered and the reason or reasons why it was

not produced before( ( ( ( ->phasis supplied.

Respondent 'atchalians and his co*applicants >otion for rehearin8 was Bled, not

se7en -:. days but rather ten -10. years after notice of the 19=2 %#" +ecision had

been recei7ed by the>( Secondly, Rule 3, % 2) of the >>i8ration Rules and

Re8ulations prescribed that any >otion for rehearin8 shall be Bled only with the

%oard of "o>>issionersK the 'atchalians >otion for rehearin8 was Bled with the%S which then purported to reopen the case Iwithout Brst securin8 the consent in

writin8 of the "o>>issioner of >>i8rationI as reLuired by Rule 2, + 20(

Further>ore, the purported re7ersal of the 19=2 %#" +ecision was >ade not by the

duly constituted %#" in 19:3, but only by its "hair>an, then &ctin8 "o>>issioner

$ituda( !r( $itudas action ew in the face of Rule 3, % 22 of the >>i8ration Rules

and Re8ulation, which >andates that the decision of any two -2. >e>bers of the

%#" shall pre7ail( t thus appears that !r( $ituda purported to act as if he were the

entire %#"( ndeed, e7en the %#" itself in 19:3 could not ha7e lawfully re7ersed aBnal decision rendered by the %#" ten -10. years a8o( 9

6e >ust, Bnally, not lose si8ht of the rulin8 in &rocha 7s( i7o -supra. where the

Supre>e "ourt eHpressly outlined the procedure to be followed by the %#" in



resol7in8 cases before the>( This court was 7ery eHplicit in holdin8 that indi7idual

actions of >e>bers of the %#" are le8ally ineJecti7eA

( ( ( TQhe for>er >>i8ration "o>>issioners appeared to ha7e acted indi7idually in

this particular instance and not as a %oard( t is shown by the diJerent dates a@Hed

to their si8natures that they did not actually >eet to discuss and 7ote on the case(

This was o@cially >ade to record by the Secretary of ustice in his !e>orandu>

#rder $o( 9, on anuary 2E, 19=2, wherein he stated(

that for the past se7eral years, the %oard of "o>>issioners of >>i8ration has not

>et collecti7ely to discuss and deliberate in the cases co>in8 before it( "itation

o>ittedQ

ndi7idual action by >e>bers of a board plainly renders nu8atory the purpose of its

constitution as a %oard( The /e8islature or8ani;ed the %oard of "o>>issioners

precisely in order that they should deliberate collecti7ely and in order that their

7iews and deas should be eHchan8ed and eHa>ined before reachin8 a conclusion

-See Ryan 7s( 4u>phrise, /R& 191)F 10E:.( This process is of the essence of a

boards action, sa7e where otherwise pro7ided by law, and the salutary eJects of

the rule would be lost were the >e>bers to act indi7idually, without beneBt of

discussion(

The powers and duties of boards and co>>issions >ay not be eHercised by the

indi7idual >e>bers separately( Their acts are o@cial only when done by the

>e>bers con7ened in sessions, upon a concurrence of at least a >aGority and with

at least a Luoru> present( "itation o>ittedQ

6here the action needed is not of the indi7iduals co>posin8 a board but of the

o@cial body, the >e>bers >ust be to8ether and act in their o@cial capacity, and

the action should appear on the records of the board( "itation o>ittedQ

6here a duty is entrusted to a board, co>posed of diJerent indi7iduals, that board

can act o@cially only as such, in con7ened sessions, with the >e>bers, or a

Luoru> thereof, present( "itation o>ittedQ 10 ->phasis supplied.



The act of !r( $ituda of re7ersin8 the 19=2 +ecision of the %#" could not hence be

considered as the act of the %#" itself(

The pretended act of re7ersal 0of !r( $ituda >ust, therefore, be stricCen down and

disre8arded for ha7in8 been >ade in eHcess of his lawful authority( The 19:3 order

of $ituda was ineJecti7e to 7est any ri8ht upon respondent 'atchalian who, it is

worth nothin8, did not pretend to sub>it any newly disco7ered e7idence to support

their clai> to Philippine citi;enship already reGected by the 19=2 %#"( n essence,

!r( $ituda purported not >erely to set aside the 19=2 %#" +ecision but also the

19=: +ecision of this "ourt in &rocha 7s( i7o(

turn to an eHa>ination of the underlyin8 facts which >aCe up the basis of the

clai> of 6illia> 'atchalian to Philippine citi;enship( The >ost striCin8 feature of this

clai> to Philippine citi;enship is that it rests upon a fra8ile web constructed out of

self*ser7in8 oral testi>ony, a total lacC of o@cial docu>entation whether Philippine

or forei8n, of ne8ati7e facts and of in7ocation of presu>ptions without proof of

essential factual pre>ises( Put in su>>ary ter>s, the clai> of 6illia> 'atchalian to

Philippine citi;enship rests upon three -3. pre>ises, to witA

a( that Santia8o 'atchalian was a Philippine citi;enK

b( the supposed Bliation of Francisco 'atchalian as a le8iti>ate son of Santia8o

'atchalian, which leads to the inter>ediate conclusion that Francisco was a

Philippine citi;enK and

c( the supposed Bliation of 6illia> 'atchalian as a le8iti>ate son of Francisco

'atchalian leadin8 to the Bnal conclusion that 6illia> 'atchalian is a Philippineciti;en(

respectfully sub>it that a careful eHa>ination of the facts >ade of record will

show that the correctness and factual nature of each of these layered pre>ises are

open to 7ery serious doubt, doubts which can only lead to the sa>e conclusion



which the %#" reached on = uly 19=2 when it re7ersed the %S, that is, that there

was failure to pro7e the Philippine citi;enship of 6illia> 'atchalian and of his ei8ht

-N. alle8ed uncles, aunts and brother in 19=1 when they Brst arri7ed in the

Philippines(

1( The supposed Philippine citi;enship of Santia8o 'atchalian >ust be

considered Brst( Santia8o was alle8edly born in %inondo, !anila, on 2) uly 190) to

Pablo Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian( The records do not disclose anythin8 about

Pablo Pacheco but e7eryone, includin8 6illia> 'atchalian, assu>es that Pablo

Pacheco was a "hinese subGect and ne7er beca>e a citi;en of the Philippine slands(

The basic clai> of Santia8o was that his >other !arciana 'atchalian was a

Philippine citi;en and that !arciana was not lawfully >arried to Pablo Pacheco and

that conseLuently, he -Santia8o. was an ille8iti>ate son of !arciana 'atchalian(

The Brst point that should be >ade in respect of Santia8os clai> was that he had

always re8arded hi>self as a "hinese citi;en until around 19)N or 19=0, that is,

when he reached the a8e of )3 or )) years( Santia8o, by his own testi>ony, li7ed

the bulC of his adult life in "hina where he went in 192E at a8e 19 and where he

stayed for about 13 years returnin8 to the Philippines for the Brst ti>e in 193:( 4e

returned in the sa>e year to "hina, stayed there for another nine -9. years, and

then ca>e bacC to the Philippines a8ain in 19E=( 4e once >ore left the Philippines

for "hina on 1E &pril 19E: and returned on 1E une 19E:( Upon his second return to

the Philippines in 19E=, he docu>ented hi>self as a "hinese nationalA he was

holder of "R $o( :)01 dated 3 !ay 19E=( 4e continued to be docu>ented as such,the record showin8 that he was also holder of an &"R $o( &*219003 dated 13

anuary 19)1( Santia8o, a8ain by his own state>ent, >arried in "hina a "hinese

wo>an( This "hinese wife, howe7er, Santia8o ne7er brou8ht or atte>pted to brin8

to the Philippines and she alle8edly died in "hina in 19)1, or four -E. years after

Santia8o had per>anently returned to the Philippines(

n 19)N, when he was )3 years of a8e, Santia8o obtained a residence certiBcate

where for the Brst ti>e he described hi>self as a Filipino( t was also only in 19=0,

that is, when Santia8o was )) years of a8e, that he Bled a petition for cancellationof his &"R ob7iously upon the theory that he had always been a Philippine citi;en( t

was at the hearin8 of his petition for cancellation of his &"R that Santia8o >ade his

oral state>ents concernin8 the supposed circu>stances of his birth, parenta8e and

>arria8e( Santia8os petition to cancel his &"R was apparently >ade in preparation

for eJorts to brin8 in, the succeedin8 year, a whole 8roup of persons as his

supposed descendants(



The second point that needs to be >ade in respect of Santia8os clai> of citi;enship

restin8 on his supposed status as an ille8iti>ate son of a Filipina wo>an, is that no

birth certiBcate bearin8 the na>e of Santia8o 'atchalian was e7er presented(

nstead, a baptis>al certiBcate bearin8 the na>e Santia8o 'atchalian was

presented showin8 the na>e of !arciana 'atchalian, Filipina, as >other, with the

na>e of the father unCnown( There was also presented a >arria8e certiBcate dated

193= of oaLuin Pacheco, alle8ed brother of Santia8o 'atchalian, also showin8

!arciana 'atchalian as >other with the na>e of the father si>ilarly left blanC(

These two -2. pieces of paper, to8ether with Santia8os own state>ents to the

"iti;enship 7aluation %oard as well as the state>ents of oaLuin Pacheco to the

sa>e %oard, constituted the su> total of the e7idence supportin8 Santia8os clai>

to Philippine citi;enship and on the basis of which an #rder dated 12 uly 19=0,

si8ned by FeliH S( Talabis, &ssociate "o>>issioner, 8ranted the petition to cancel

Santia8os alien re8istry(

n so issuin8 his #rder 8rantin8 cancellation of Santia8os &"R, "o>>issioner

Talabis disre8arded Santia8os failure to present a birth certiBcate, in ob7ious

7iolation of rules of the %ureau of >>i8ration which eHpressly reLuire the

sub>ission of a birth certiBcate, or a certiBed true copy thereof, in proceedin8s

brou8ht for cancellation of an &"R upon the 8round that the petitioner is an

ille8iti>ate son of a Filipina >other( 11 t is well*settled that a baptis>al certiBcate

is proof only of the ad>inistration of baptis> to the person na>ed therein, and that

such certiBcate is not proof of anythin8 else and certainly not proof of parenta8e nor

of the status of le8iti>acy or

ille8iti>acy( 12

That #rder also casually disre8arded a nu>ber of other thin8s, one of which was a

docu>ent dated 1902 si8ned by !aHi>a 'atchalian, the >other of !arciana

'atchalian, statin8 that !aHi>a O

( ( ( residin8 in the "ity of !anila, >other of !arciana 'atchalian, un>arried, of 1N

years of a8e, her father bein8 dead, do hereby freely consent to her >arria8e with

Pablo "( Pacheco, of !anila, and that Cnow of no le8al i>pedi>ent to such

>arria8e( ->phasis supplied.



Such parental consent indicated that a >arria8e cere>ony would ha7e taCen place

shortly thereafter as a >atter of courseK otherwise, the consent would ha7e been

totally pointless( 7en >ore i>portantly, "o>>issioner Talabis #rder disre8arded

the testi>ony of Santia8o 'atchalian hi>self in the sa>e cancellation proceedin8sthat he -Santia8o. belie7ed that his parents had been >arried by the ustice of the

Peace of Pasi8, Ri;al( 13 n his #rder, "o>>issioner Talabis referred to the fact that

Santia8o 'atchalian had been Iinterchan8eably usin8 his parental and >aternal

surna>es( n school, he was Cnown as Santia8o Pacheco -"lass "ard for 1920*1921,

!eisic !anilaK "ertiBcates of "o>pletion of Third and Fourth 'rades, !eisic Pri>ary

School.( %ut in his Special "edula "ertiBcate $o( =:=N12 dated 1: Septe>ber 193:,

and in taH clearance certiBcate issued on 2 #ctober 193:, he is referred to as

Santia8o 'atchalianK and in a "o>>unication dated = une 19E1, he was addressed

to as Santia8o Pacheco by the Philippine "harity SweepstaCes #@ce(I &t the 7ery

least, such use of both paternal and >aternal surna>es indicated that Santia8o was

uncertain as to his supposed ille8iti>acy( n our case law, >oreo7er, the use of apaternal surna>e >ay be re8arded as an indication of possession of the status of a

le8iti>ate or acCnowled8ed natural child( 1E

Perhaps the >ost i>portant aspect of "o>>issioner Talabis #rder 8rantin8

cancellation of Santia8os &"R, is that such #rder failed to 8i7e any wei8ht to the

presu>ption in law in fa7or of >arria8e, a presu>ption si8niBcantly reinforced by

the parental consent 8i7en by !aHi>a 'atchalian to the >arria8e of her dau8hter

!arciana 'atchalian to one Pablo "( Pacheco( & related presu>ption is that in fa7or

of the le8iti>acy of oJsprin8 born of a >an and wo>an co>portin8 the>sel7es ashusband and wife( 1) respectfully sub>it that these presu>ptions cannot be

successfully o7erthrown by the si>ple self*ser7in8 testi>ony of Santia8o and of his

alle8ed brother oaLuin Pacheco and by the two -2. pieces of paper -the baptis>al

certiBcate of Santia8o and the >arria8e certiBcate of oaLuin Pacheco.( t see>s

rele7ant to point out that oaLuin Pacheco, too, was unable to present any birth

certiBcate to pro7e his supposed co>>on parenta8e with Santia8o 'atchalianK

oaLuin was alle8edly born in 1902, the sa>e year that !aHi>a 'atchalian 8a7e her

consent to the >arria8e of !arciana 'atchalian and Pablo "( Pacheco(

The third point that needs to be underscored is that Santia8o 'atchalian did nothin8

to try to brin8 into the Philippines his supposed sons and dau8hters and

8randchildren since 19E:, when he returned per>anently to the Philippines, and

until 19=0( The story 8i7en by the nine -9. supposed descendants of Santia8o when

they Brst arri7ed in the Philippines was that they had left the Peoples Republic of

"hina and had 8one to !acao in 19)2 and there they stayed until they >o7ed to



4on8Con8 in 19)N( t should also be noted that the youn8est supposed child of

Santia8o, %enGa>in 'atchalian, was said to ha7e been born in "hina in 19E2 and

was conseLuently only B7e -). years old when Santia8o returned per>anently to

the Philippines in 19E:( n other words, Santia8o 'atchalian beha7ed as if the nine

-9. supposed descendants did not eHist until 19=0 when "o>>issioner Talabis

#rder cancellin8 Santia8os &"R was issued(

t >ay also be noted that Santia8os 19)1 &"R application >entioned only two -2.

children of Santia8oA ose and lena( n 19=1, howe7er, Santia8o stated before the

i>>i8ration in7esti8ator that he had a total of B7e -). childrenA ose, lena,

Francisco, 'loria and %enGa>in( Santia8os eHplanation stron8ly echoes a co>>on

lawyers eHcuse for failure to seasonably Ble so>e pleadin8, and, it is respectfully

sub>itted, is eLually contri7ed and unpersuasi7eK that he had his clerC Bll up the

&"RK that he 8a7e his clerC four -E. na>es -not B7e )Q.K that the clerC had si>ply

failed to Bll up the &"R correctly( n its = uly 19=2 +ecision, the %#" noted thatIwhile the two -2. na>es listed in Santia8osQ &"R applicationQ ose and lena,

bear the sa>e na>es as two of the 9Q applicants, the diJerence in the a8es of said

persons co>pared to the said applicants, casts serious doubts on their dentity(I 1=

t is su88ested in the >aGority opinion that the Luestion of citi;enship of Santia8o

'atchalian is a closed >atter which cannot be re7iewed by this "ourtK that per the

records of the %ureau of >>i8ration, as of 20 uly 19=0, Santia8o 'atchalian had

been declared to be a Filipino citi;en and that this forecloses re*openin8 of that

Luestion thirty -30. years later( >ust, with respect, disa8ree with this su88estion( The ad>inistrati7e deter>ination by the %ureau of >>i8ration as of 20 uly 19=0

certainly does not constitute res adGudicata that forecloses this "ourt fro>

eHa>inin8 the supposed Philippine citi;enship of Santia8o 'atchalian upon which

pri7ate respondent 6illia> 'atchalian seeCs to rely( The "ourt cannot a7oid

eHa>inin8 the Philippine nationality clai>ed by Santia8o 'atchalian or, >ore

accurately, clai>ed on his behalf by 6illia> 'atchalian, considerin8 that one of the

central issues here is the tanability or untenability of the clai> of 6illia> 'atchalian

to Philippine citi;enship and hence to entry or ad>ission to the Philippines as such

citi;en(

2( The second of the three -3. pre>ises noted in the be8innin8 of this section isA

that Francisco 'atchalian was the le8iti>ate son of Santia8o 'atchalian and

therefore followed the supposed Philippine citi;enship of Santia8o( This pre>ise has

in fact two -2. partsA -a. the physical Bliation of Francisco 'atchalian as the son of

Santia8o 'atchalianK and -b. that Santia8o 'atchalian was lawfully >arried to the

"hinese >other of Francisco 'atchalian( This pre>ise is re>arCable for the total



absence of docu>entary support for either of its two -2. parts( Francisco was born in

&>oy, "hina in 1931, accordin8 to Santia8o( The su> total of the e7idence on this

pre>ise consists of Francisco 'atchalians own state>ent and that of Santia8o( $o

birth certiBcate or certiBed true copy thereof, or co>parable docu>entation under

"hinese law, was sub>itted by either Santia8o or by Francisco( $o secondary

e7idence of any Cind was sub>itted( $o testi>ony of a disinterested person wasoJered(

Santia8o 'atchalian clai>ed to ha7e been >arried in "hina in 192= to a "hinese

wo>an, "hua 'i> Tee, out of which >arria8e Francisco was alle8edly born( $o

docu>entary proof of such >arria8e in "hina, whether pri>ary or secondary, was

e7er sub>itted( $either was there e7er presented any proof of the contents of the

"hinese law on >arria8e in 192= and of co>pliance with its reLuire>ents(

t is Br>ly settled in our Gurisdiction that he who asserts and relies upon the

eHistence of a 7alid forei8n >arria8e >ust pro7e not only the forei8n law on

>arria8e and the fact of co>pliance with the reLuisites of such law, but also the

fact of the >arria8e itself( n ao 5ee 7s( Sy*'on;ales, 1: the issue before the "ourt

was whether the >arria8e of petitioner ao 5ee to the deceased Sy 5iat in

accordance with "hinese law and custo> had been adeLuately pro7en( n renderin8

a ne8ati7e answer, this "ourt, speaCin8 throu8h "ortes, (, saidA

These e7idence >ay 7ery well pro7e the fact of >arria8e between ao 5ee and Sy5iat( 4owe7er, the sa>e do not su@ce to establish the 7alidity of said >arria8e in

accordance with "hinese law and custo>(

"usto> is deBned as Ia rule of conduct for>ed by repetition of acts, unifor>ly

obser7ed -practiced. as a social rule, le8ally bindin8 and obli8atory(I The law

reLuires that Ia custo> >ust be pro7ed as a fact, accordin8 to the rules of

e7idenceI &rticle 12, "i7il "odeQ( #n this score the "ourt had occasion to state that

Ia local custo> as a source of ri8ht can not be considered by a court of Gustice

unless such custo> is properly established by co>petent e7idence liCe any otherfactI Patriarca 7s( #rato, : Phil( 390, 39) -190:.Q( The sa>e e7idence, if not one of

a hi8her de8ree, should be reLuired of a forei8n custo>(

The law on forei8n >arria8es is pro7ided by &rticle :1 of the "i7il "ode which states

thatA



&rt( :1( &ll >arria8es perfor>ed outside the Philippines in accordance with the

laws in force in the country where they were perfor>ed, and 7alid there as such,

shall also be 7alid in this country, eHcept bi8a>ous, poly8a>ous, or incestuous

>arria8es, as deter>ined by Philippine law(

"onstruin8 this pro7ision of law the "ourt has held that to establish a 7alid forei8n

>arria8e two thin8s >ust be pro7en, na>elyA -1. the eHistence of the forei8n law as

a Luestion of factK and -2. the alle8ed forei8n >arria8e by con7incin8 e7idence

&don8 7s( "heon8 Sen8 'ee, E3 Phil( E3, E9 -1922.( 1N ->phasis supplied.

n the instant case, there was absolutely no proof other than Santia8os bare

assertion that a >arria8e cere>ony between Santia8o and "hua 'i> Tee had taCenplace in "hina in accordance with "hinese law( The contents of the rele7ant "hinese

law on >arria8e at the ti>e of the supposed >arria8e, was si>ilarly not shown(

Should it be assu>ed si>ply that the reLuire>ents of the 192= "hinese law on

>arria8e are identical with the reLuire>ents of the Philippine law on >arria8e, it

>ust be pointed out that neither Santia8o nor Francisco 'atchalian sub>itted proof

that any of the reLuire>ents of a 7alid >arria8e under Philippine law had been

co>plied with(

respectfully ur8e, therefore, that the reliance in the >aGority opinion upon ourconicts rule on >arria8e e>bodied in &rticle :1 of the "i7il "ode -now &rticle 2= of

the Fa>ily "odeK then Section 19 of &ct $o( 3=30. is unwarranted( The rule that a

forei8n >arria8e 7alid in accordance with the law of the place where it was

perfor>ed shall be 7alid also in the Philippines, cannot be8in to operate until after

the >arria8e perfor>ed abroad and its co>pliane with the reLuire>ents for 7alidity

under the >arria8e law of the place where perfor>ed, are Brst shown as factual

>atters( There is, in other words, no factual basis for a presu>ption that a lawful

>arria8e under "hinese law had taCen place in 192= in "hina between Santia8o

'atchalian and "hua 'i> Tee(

t >ust follow also that Francisco 'atchalian cannot si>ply rely upon a presu>ption

of le8iti>acy of oJsprin8 of a 7alid >arria8e( &s far as the record here is concerned,

there could well ha7e been no >arria8e at all in "hina between Santia8o 'atchalian

and "hua 'i> Tee -Gust as Santia8o had insisted that his father and >other had

ne7er >arried each other. and that conseLuently Francisco 'atchalian could Gust as

well ha7e followed the nationality of his ad>ittedly "hinese >other(



3( The last pre>ise noted earlier is the supposed Bliation of 6illia> 'atchalian

as a le8iti>ate son of Francisco which resulted in 6illia>s followin8 the supposed

Philippine citi;enship of Francisco 'atchalian( 6illia> was, accordin8 to Santia8o

'atchalian, born in &>oy, "hina in 19E9( 4ere a8ain, Gust in the case of Francisco'atchalian, there is a co>plete absence of conte>poraneous docu>entary

e7idence of the supposed Bliation of 6illia> 'atchalian as a le8iti>ate son of

Francisco 'atchalian( 19 The only support e7er presented for such alle8ed Bliation

consisted of the oral state>ents of Santia8o 'atchalian, Francisco 'atchalian and

6illia> 'atchalian( t is di@cult to resist the i>pression that there tooC place here a

pyra>idin8 of oral state>ents, each restin8 upon another oral state>ent and all

8oin8 bacC to the supposed bastardy of Santia8o, a status suddenly disco7ered or

asserted by Santia8o in his ))th year in life( $o birth certiBcate, or co>parable

docu>entation under "hinese law, eHhibitin8 the na>e of 6illia> 'atchalian was

sub>itted(

Francisco 'atchalian stated that he had >arried a "hinese wo>an, #n8 Siu 5ioC, in

&>oy in 19E: accordin8 to "hinese custo>( #nce a8ain, we >ust note that there

was no proof sub>itted that a >arria8e cere>ony satisfyin8 the reLuire>ents of

I"hinese custo>I had e7er taCen place in "hina between Francisco and #n8 Siu

5ioCK neither was there any proof that a >arria8e Iaccordin8 to "hinese custo>I

was 7alid and lawful under "hinese law in 19E: and of factual co>pliance with the

reLuire>ents of the law and custo> in "hina concernin8 >arria8e( 20 #n8 Siu 5ioC

was alle8ed to ha7e died in !acau and ne7er ca>e to the Philippines( t >ust then

follow, once a8ain, that no presu>ption of a lawful >arria8e between Francisco'atchalian and his alle8ed "hinese wife can be in7oCed by 6illia> 'atchalian( t

follows still further that 6illia> 'atchalian cannot in7oCe any presu>ption of

le8iti>acy in his own fa7or( &s in the case of his putati7e father Francisco, 6illia>

could as well ha7e followed the nationality of his concededly "hinese >other(

#ne Bnal noteA it >i8ht be thou8ht that the result ha7e reached is unduly harsh

considerin8 the prolon8ed physical stay of 6illia> 'atchalian in the country( %ut

this "ourt >ust apply the law as it is in fact written( respectfully sub>it that the

appropriate recourse of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, should he feel that he hasso>e hu>anitarian clai> to a ri8ht to stay in the Philippines, is to the political

depart>ents of 'o7ern>ent( Those depart>ents of 'o7ern>ent >ay then consider

the wisdo> and desirability, in the li8ht of the interests of the country, of le8islation

per>ittin8 the le8ali;ation of the entry and stay in the Philippines of respondent

6illia> 'atchalian and those si>ilarly situated( Unless and until such le8islation is



enacted, this "ourt really has no choice sa7e to apply and enforce our i>>i8ration

law and re8ulations and our law on citi;enship(

&ccordin8ly, 7ote to 'R&$T the Petition for "ertiorari and Prohibition in '(R( $os(

9)122*23, and to ST &S+ the ResolutionDTe>porary Restrainin8 #rder dated :

Septe>ber 1990 issued by respondent ud8e +ela Rosa in "i7il "ase $o( 90*)21E,

as well as the #rder of respondent ud8e "apulon8 dated = Septe>ber 1990 in "i7il

"ase $o( 3E31**90K and to R*&FFR! that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian is not a

Philippine citi;en(

!elencio*4errera, "ru;, Paras, Padilla, Re8alado, (, concur

Separate #pinions

+&+, R(, (, concurrin8*dissentin8 opinionA

can easily a8ree with the su>>ary of antecedent facts in the ponencia of !r(

ustice %idin and the reiteration therein of the established doctrine that the %ureau

of >>i8ration has the eHclusi7e authority and Gurisdiction to try and hear cases

a8ainst alle8ed aliens, and in the process, deter>ine also their citi;enship, and that

Ia >ere clai> of citi;enship cannot operate to di7est the %oard of "o>>issioners of

its Gurisdiction in deportation proceedin8s(I also a8ree with the conclusion that the

petitioners in '(R( $o( 9)122*23, the %oard of "o>>issioners and %oard of Special

nLuiry, hereinafter referred to as the %oards, are Luasi*Gudicial bodies(

4owe7er, cannot 8o alon8 with the 7iew that the case of 6illia> 'atchalian should

be treated as an eHception to that doctrine and, abo7e all, to the law which 7ests

upon the "ourt of &ppeals eHclusi7e appellate Gurisdiction o7er the %oards( $either

can ha7e solidarity with his opinion that this "ourt should, in this instance, rule on



in the case Bled by 6illia>( t appears then that their Blin8 of a separate co>plaint

before another court was part of a strate8y to frustrate the proceedin8s before the

%oards( &s correctly >aintained by the petitionin8 %oards, we ha7e here a clear

case of foru>*shoppin8, especially considerin8 the fact that on Septe>ber E, 1990,

or two days before the Blin8 of the case before the alen;uela court the 8o7ern>ent

Bled a >otion to dis>iss the case before the !anila court( Foru>*shoppin8 has lon8been conde>ned and proscribed( n People 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, et al( -101 S"R&

E)0, E=3., pro>ul8ated on 2N $o7e>ber 19N0, this "ourt held that a party Ishould

not be allowed to pursue si>ultaneous re>edies in two diJerent foru>s(I n the

Resolution of 31 uly 19N= in ( Ra;on nc(, et al( 7s( Philippine Port &uthority, et al(,

'(R( $o( :)19:, this "ourt heldA

The acts of petitioners constitute a clear case of foru>*shoppin8, an act of

>alpractice that is proscribed and conde>ned as triin8 with the courts and

abusin8 their processes( t is i>proper conduct that tends to de8rade thead>inistration of Gustice( -See also %uan 7s( /ope;, r(, 1E) S"R& 3EK Pal> &7enue

Realty +e7elop>ent "orp( 7s( P"'', 1)3 S"R& )91K !inister of $atural Resources,

et al( 7s( 4eirs of #r7al 4u8hes, et al(, 1)) S"R& )==K /i>pin 7s( &", 1=1 S"R& 9NK

"ollado 7s( 4ernando, 1=1 S"R& =39K illanue7a, et al( 7s( &dre, et al(, 1:2 S"R&

N::K +an7ille !ariti>e, nc( 7s( "#&, 1:) S"R& :1:K "risosto>o 7s( S", 1:9 S"R&

1)EK &dlawan 7s( To>ol, 1:9 S"R& E2K and &lonto 7s( !e>oracion, 1N) S"R& :3.(

6illia> 'atchalian did not stop in his foru>*shoppin8 in the re8ional trial courts(

Under the 8uise of a counter*petition, he is now before this "ourt in an acti7eoJensi7e role( This is a 7ery cle7er, albeit subtle, ploy to ban8 directly to this "ourt

the issue of his deportation and to di7est the %oards of their ori8inal Gurisdiction

thereon( 4e could ha7e done this at the Brst instanceK he did not( 4e and his wife

and >inor children deliberately chose, instead, to separately 8o to the wron8 court,

e7idently to delay the proceedin8s before the %oards, which they acco>plished

when the two Gud8es separately issued orders restrainin8 said %oards fro>

co>>encin8 or continuin8 with any of the proceedin8s which would lead to the

deportation of 6illia> 'atchalian -"i7il "ase $o( 90*)E21E. and fro> proceedin8

with the deportation char8es a8ainst 6illia> 'atchalian -"i7il "ase $o( 3E31**90.(

"hua 4ion8 7s( +eportation %oard -9= Phil( ==). cited in the ponencia as another

authority which allows 6illia> 'atchalian to enGoy the protecti7e >antle of the

eHceptionary rule aJectin8 the eHclusi7e power of the "o>>ission on >>i8ration

and +eportation to try and hear cases a8ainst aliens and in the process also

deter>ine their citi;enship is either not applicable or is >is*applied( This case laid

down the principle that Iwhen the e7idence sub>itted by a respondent is conclusi7e



of his citi;enship, the ri8ht to i>>ediate re7iew should also be reco8ni;ed and the

courts should pro>ptly enGoin the deportation proceedin8s( ( ( ( f he is a citi;en and

e7idence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor Gustice in allowin8 the

deportation proceedin8s to continue, 8rantin8 hi> the re>edy only after the %oard

has Bnished its in7esti8ation of his undesirability( ( ( (I -e>phasis supplied.( The

word courts should not now be interpreted to >ean or to include the re8ional trialcourts because, as stated abo7e, said courts do not ha7e any appellate Gurisdiction

o7er the "o>>ission on >>i8ration and +eportation, the %oard of "o>>issioners

and the %oard of Special nLuiry( This case was decided in 19)) yet, or twenty*siH

years before the eJecti7ity of %atas Pa>bansa %l8( 129(

The condition sine Lua non then to an authori;ed Gudicial inter7ention is that the

e7idence sub>itted by a respondent is conclusi7e of his citi;enship, or as stated in

"o 7s( +eportation %oard, -:N S"R& 10E, 10:., the clai> of citi;enship is so

substantial that there are no reasonable 8rounds for the belief that the clai> iscorrect(

The facts before this "ourt do not constitute, or e7en show, a conclusi7e or

substantial e7idence that 6illia> 'atchalian is a Filipino citi;en( #n the contrary,

7ery serious doubts surround such a clai> fro> the be8innin8( 4is initial entry into

the Philippines was >ade possible throu8h a "ertiBcate of dentity -as Filipino.

which was issued on the basis of a for8ed cable8ra> by the then Secretary of

Forei8n &Jairs( Then on = uly 19=2 the then new %oard of "o>>issioners

pro>ul8ated a written decision in ("( "ases $os( =1*210N*" to =1*211=*" inclusi7e-&pplication for ad>ission as Philippine citi;ens of ose, lena, %enGa>in, uan,

Pedro, 'loria, Francisco, 6illia> and ohnson, all surna>ed 'atchalian. re7ersin8

the decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry $o( 1 of = uly 19=1 and orderin8 the

eHclusion of 6illia> 'atchalian and the others as aliens not properly docu>ented(

&ccordin8ly, a warrant of eHclusion, also dated = uly 19=2, was issued by the

"o>>issioners co>>andin8 the deportation o@cer to eHclude 6illia> 'atchalian,

and others, and to cause their re>o7al fro> the country on the Brst a7ailable

transportation in accordance with law to the port of the country of which they were

nationals( The pertinent portion of the +ecision reads as followsA

The clai> to Philippine citi;enship of abo7e*na>ed applicants is based on the

citi;enship of one Santia8o 'atchalian whose Philippine citi;enship was reco8ni;ed

by the %ureau of >>i8ration in an #rder, dated uly 12, 19=0( t is alle8ed that

applicants #S '&T"4&/&$, FR&$"S"# '&T"4&/&$, /$& '&T"4&/&$ and



%$&!$ '&T"4&/&$ are the le8iti>ate children of Santia8o 'atchalian with one

"hiu 'i> Tee( Hcept for the self*ser7in8 testi>onies of Santia8o 'atchalian and his

alle8ed children, there has not been sub>itted any e7idence of Santia8o

'atchalians >arria8e to "hiu 'i> Tee and the birth of the alle8ed children of the

couple( The personal records of Santia8o 'atchalian on Ble with this o@ce do not

reect the na>es of applicants as his children, and while two na>es listed in hisFor> 1 -&"R application., ose and lena, bear the sa>e na>e as two of herein

applicants, the diJerence in the a8es of said applicants, casts serious doubt on their

identity( &propos, the applicants #S '&T"4&/&$, '/#R& '&T"4&/&$,

FR&$"S"# '&T"4&/&$, /$& '&T"4&/&$ and %$&!$ '&T"4&/&$, not

ha7in8 satisfactorily pro7ed as the children of Santia8o 'atchalian, deter>ination of

the citi;enship of the other applicants, U&$ '&T"4&/&$, P+R# '&T"4&/&$ and

#4$S#$ '&T"4&/&$, whose ri8ht to Filipino citi;enship are >erely drawn fro>

their fathers, ose 'atchalian and Francisco 'atchalian, is unnecessary( -+ecision,

&nneH II of Petition.(

/ooCin8 bacC to the case of Santia8o, 6illia>s alle8ed 8randfather, cannot Bnd

su@cient credible e7idence to support his clai> of Filipino citi;enship( For a lon8

ti>e before 20 uly 19=0 he considered hi>self a "hinese citi;en( The IconclusionI

of the %ureau of >>i8ration that Santia8o is a Filipino citi;en is based on totally

Luestionable and insu@cient e7idence which cannot inspire belief( The #rder itself,

si8ned by &ssociate "o>>issioner FeliH Talabis, supports this conclusion( t reads in

full as followsA

This is a petition for the cancellation of an alien re8istry of S&$T&'# '&T"4&/&$,

re8istered as "hinese and holder of &"R $o( &*219003 issued at !anila on 13

February 19)1 and "R $o( :)01 dated 3 !ay 19E=( 4e is alle8ed to be the son of

Filipino parents who were not lawfully >arried(

t is alle8ed that the petitioner was born in %inondo, !anila, on 2) uly 190), to

Pablo Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian( t is noted that in his application for alien

re8istration Bled with this #@ce on 13 anuary 19)1, Santia8o 'atchalian stated

that his deceased parents were Pablo Pacheco and !arciana( 4e was identiBed byhis only brother, oaLuin Pacheco, who insisted that he and petitioner are

ille8iti>ate( t is true that, on record, there is a certiBcate si8ned on 2= #ctober

1902 by !aHi>a 'atchalian, their >aternal 8rand>other, 8i7in8 consent to the

>arria8e of !arciana 'atchalian to Pablo Pacheco -Hh( %., but oaLuin said that his

parents did not actually 8et >arried( n proof of this, the baptis>al record of the

petitioner eHpressly states that Santia8o 'atchalian was born on 2) uly 190) and

bapti;ed on = #ctober 190), bein8 the son of !arciana 'atchalian, IBlipinaI, and an



unCnown father -7erbati> copy dated 22 une 190:, Parish Priest of %inondo,

!anila.(

The petitioner, apparently not co>pletely certain about his ci7il status, has been

interchan8eably usin8 his paternal and >aternal surna>es( n school he was Cnown

as Santia8o Pacheco -"lass card for 1920*21, !eisic, !anilaK "ertiBcates of

co>pletion of third and fourth 8rades, !eisic Pri>ary School.K but in his residence

certiBcate dated 1: Septe>ber 193:, and in TaH "learance "ertiBcate issued on 2

#ctober 193:, he is referred to as Santia8o 'atchalianK and in a co>>unication

dated = une 19E1, he was addressed to as Santia8o Pacheco by the Philippine

"harity SweepstaCes o@ce(

"onsiderin8, howe7er, the positi7e assertion by his elder brother who is better

infor>ed about their ori8in, the incontestable entry in his baptis>al record that he

is ille8iti>ate and the entry in the >arria8e contract of his elder brother wherein

the fathers na>e is o>itted and the >other, !arciana 'atchalian, is described as

Filipina ->arria8e contract dated 29 $o7e>ber 193=. there is su@cient e7idence to

establish that Santia8o 'atchalian is really Filipino at birth, bein8 the le8iti>ate

child of a Filipino wo>an(

64RF#R, the herein petition to cancel his alien re8istration is 8ranted,

petitioner shall henceforth be shown in the records of this o@ce as a citi;en of the

Philippines and the issuance to hi> of the appropriate dentiBcation certiBcateshowin8 his correct status is hereby authori;ed( -#rder of 12 uly 19=0, &nneH I1I of


&s to his alle8ed >arria8e to "hu 'i> Tee, and their B7e children, we only ha7e his

self*sellin8 oral testi>ony, thusA

6hat is the na>e of your wife

& 4er na>e is "hu 'i> Tee(

s she still ali7e



& $o, she died in 19)1, in &>oy(

+o you ha7e children with her, if so, >ention their na>es, a8es and seHes

& es( ha7e B7e children, all of the> ali7e and they are as followsA

ose 'atchalian, born on an( 2, 192: in &>oyK 'loria 'atchalian, born February 20,

1929 in &>oyK Francisco 'atchalian, born on !arch 3, 1931 in &>oyK lena

'atchalian, born on &pril E, 1933 in &>oyK %enGa>in 'atchalian, born on 31 !arch

19E2 in &>oy(

6here are they li7in8 now

& &ll of the> are now li7in8 in !acao, with >y sister*in*law by the na>e of "hu

/a> Tee( -p( E, Transcript of the proceedin8s before the "iti;en 7aluation %oard on

12 February 19=0, &nneH I2I of "o>>ent with "ounter*Petition.(

f indeed Santia8os parents, Pablo Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian, were >arried,

what was his reason for insistin8, throu8h his brother oaLuin, that he, is an

ille8iti>ate son The only possible reason is that Pablo Pacheco is a "hinese citi;en,

in which case Santia8o would follow the citi;enship of !arciana, a IBlipina(I %ut to

8i7e full faith and credit to the oral insistence of ille8iti>acy is to do 7iolence to the

presu>ptions of 7alidity of >arria8e, the indissolubility of the >arria8e bonds and

the le8iti>acy of children( -&rt( 220, "i7il "ode.( These are a>on8 the presu>ptions

which the ponencia precisely applied when it reGected the petitioners clai> that

Santia8o failed to establish his clai>ed >arria8e to "hu 'i> Tee and Franciscos

-father of 6illia>. clai>ed >arria8e to #n8 "hiu 5ioC, both of which were alle8edlycelebrated abroad( cannot Bnd any 7alid GustiBcation why these presu>ptions

should be liberally applied in fa7or of clai>ed >arria8es alle8edly celebrated

abroad but denied to purported >arria8es celebrated in the Philippines(

nterestin8ly, Santia8o used the surna>e Pacheco durin8 such proceedin8s and

when he testiBed, he 8a7e his na>e as Santia8o 'atchalian Pacheco( This is an



incontro7ertible proof that he reco8ni;ed the le8iti>ate union of his father and

>other(

#n 1N February 19=0, Santia8o was recalled to be confronted re his clai> as to the

nu>ber of his childrenK he testiBed thusA

n your testi>ony on February 12, this year, you na>ed as your children the

followin8A ose, 'loria, Francisco, lena and %enGa>in, all born in &>oy, arran8ed

accordin8 to the order of their a8es( 4owe7er, in your For> 1 when you secured

your &"R in 19)1, you >entioned only ose 'atchalian and lena 'atchalian( 6hy,

what is the reason why in this for> that you Blled up in 19)1, you >entioned only

ose and lena

& That for> a> not the one who Blled it because that is not >y handwritin8( t

is the handwritin8 of >y broCer or the clerC of >y broCer( 4owe7er, when they

prepared that >entioned >y children na>ed ose, 'loria, Francisco, lena in a

piece of paper which 8a7e to hi>, eHcept %enGa>in(

6hy did you not >ention %enGa>in in the list

& %ecause he was not yet bapti;ed then( -Transcript, p( :, &nneH I2I of


The eHplanation is 7ery i>sy and does not deser7e the respect of a passin8 8lance(

There is no showin8 that 'atchalian tooC any i>>ediate deBnite positi7e step

a8ainst the = uly 19=2 decision and the warrant of eHclusion(

t was only so>eti>e in 19:3, or ele7en years after, that he and others co7ered by

the warrant of eHpulsion Bled a >otion for re*hearin8 with the %oard of Special

nLuiry( There has been no eHplanation for the unreasonable delay in the Blin8 of the

>otion( t >ay be sur>ised that it was due to his >inority, considerin8 that he was

alle8edly only twel7e years old when he arri7ed in !anila fro> 4on8Con8 on 2: une



19=1( %ut, such >inority was no obstacle to the Blin8 of any re>edial action for and

in his behalf(

The action taCen by and the reco>>endation of the %oard of Special nLuiry of 1E

!arch 19:3 to the then &ctin8 "o>>issioner ictor $ituda for the re7ersal of the

uly =, 19=2 decision of the %oard of "o>>issioners were not only hi8hly

ano>alous, irre8ular and i>proper, it was done without any se>blance of authority(

The %oard of Special nLuiry did not ha7e the power to re7iew, >odify or re7erse a

+ecision of the %oard of "o>>issioners rendered about ele7en years earlier( Then

&ctin8 "o>>issioner ictor $ituda, actin8 alone, did not liCewise ha7e the power or

authority to appro7e the reco>>endation of said %oard, to re7i7e andDor rea@r>

the uly =, 19=1 decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry, to re7erse, and nullify, the

+ecision of = uly 19=2 of the %oard of "o>>issioners, and to order the ad>ission

of 6illia> 'atchalian as a Filipino citi;en( Pursuant to Sec( 2= -b. of "(&( $o( =13, as

a>ended -The Philippine >>i8ration &ct of 19E0., only the %oard of"o>>issioners can act on the reco>>endation, if at all it was le8ally and 7alidly

done( The %oard of "o>>issioners is co>posed of the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration

and the two +eputy "o>>issioners( n the absence of any >e>ber of the %oard,

the +epart>ent 4ead shall desi8nate an o@cer or e>ployee in the %ureau of

>>i8ration to ser7e as >e>ber thereof( n any case co>in8 before it, the decision

of any two >e>bers shall pre7ail( -Sec( N, "(&( $o( =13 as a>ended.( The

+epart>ent 4ead referred to is the Secretary of ustice since the "o>>ission is, for

ad>inistrati7e purposes, under the super7ision and control of the +epart>ent of

ustice(

The decision then of &ctin8 "o>>issioner $ituda was 7oid and in7alid ab initio( n

7iew thereof, the rationali;ation in the ponencia that the issue could be re*opened

since the decision of the %oard of "o>>issioners of = uly 19=2 did not constitute

res Gudicata is irrele7ant( %ut e7en if it is to be conceded that the = uly 19=2

decision did not constitute res Gudicata, Bnd it both stran8e and illo8ical to 8i7e full

faith and credit to the unilateral action of !r( $ituda and to use it to bar the %oards

fro> eHercisin8 its power and Gurisdiction o7er 6illia> 'atchalian(

&ssu>in8 that indeed 6illia> is the 8randson of Santia8o, Bnd it rather stran8e

why Santia8o did not >ention hi> in his testi>ony before the "iti;enship 7aluation

%oard( &t that ti>e 6illia> was already ele7en years old( t is lo8ical to presu>e

that the proceedin8 initiated by Santia8o was principally for the beneBt of his

alle8ed children and 8randchildren( t was, as subseLuent e7ents pro7ed, intended

to prepare the le8al basis for their entry into the country as Filipino citi;ens( Thus,

ele7en >onths after he obtained a fa7orable decision fro> the %oard, and on two



successi7e dates, his alle8ed children and 8randchildren entered the country( #n 2)

une 19=1 his alle8ed children ose, lena, %enGa>in, and his alle8ed 8randchildren

Pedro and uan arri7ed fro> 4on8Con8( #n 2: une 19=1, his alle8ed dau8hter

'loria and son Francisco with his alle8ed children 6illia> and ohnson also arri7ed

fro> 4on8Con8( -pp( E*), Petition.(

That he has continuously resided in the Philippines since 19=1K he is >arried to Tin8

+ee 4ua on uly 1, 19:3, and his >arria8e contract shows that he is a Filipino

citi;enK he holds passports and earlier passports as a FilipinoK he is a re8istered

7oter of alen;uela, !etro !anila where he has lon8 resided and eHercised his ri8ht

of suJra8eK he is en8a8ed in business in the Philippines since 19:3, and is a

directorDo@cer of the nternational Poly>er "orp( and Rope>an nternational "orp(

as a Filipino, and that the co>panies he runs and in which he has a controllin8

in7est>ent pro7ided a li7elihood to E,000 e>ployees and approHi>ately 2),000

dependentsK he is a taHpayerK and he has continuously enGoyed the status of Filipinociti;enship, dischar8ed his responsibility as such until petitionin8 %oards initiated

the deportation proceedin8s a8ainst hi>, are not of any help to 6illia> 'atchalian(

For, they neither confer nor stren8then his clai> of Filipino citi;enship since they are

all rooted on the ille8al and 7oid decision of then &ctin8 "o>>issioner ictor $ituda

of 1) !arch 19:3( & decision which is 7oid and in7alid ab initio cannot be a source

of 7alid acts( $either can such substanti7e inBr>ity be cured by salutary acts that

tend to conBr> the status conferred by the 7oid decision(

n the li8ht of the fore8oin8, it follows that the warrant of eHclusion issued a8ainst6illia> 'atchalian pursuant to and by 7irtue of the = uly 19=2 +ecision of the

%oard of "o>>issioners subsists and re>ains 7alid and enforceable(

disa8ree with the 7iew ad7anced in the ponencia that the State can no lon8er

enforce the warrant of eHclusion because it is already barred by prescription

considerin8 that Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct states that deportation Ishall

not be eJected ( ( ( unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within

B7e -). years after the cause of deportation arises(I

Said para8raph -b. of Section 3: reads in full as followsA

-b. +eportation >ay be eJected under clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12 para8raph -a.

of this section at any ti>e after entry, but shall not be eJected under any other



clause unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within B7e years

after the cause of deportation arises( +eportation under clauses 3 and E shall not be

eJected if the court or Gud8e thereof, when sentencin8 the alien, shall reco>>end

to the "o>>issioner of >>i8ration that the alien be not deported( -&s a>ended by

Sec( 13, R(&( $o( )03.( ->phasis supplied.(

$ote that the B7e*year period applies only to clauses other than 2, :, N, 11 and 12

of para8raph -a. of the Section( n respect to clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12, the

li>itation does not apply( These clauses read as followsA

-2. &ny alien who enters the Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this &ct, who

was not lawfully ad>issible at the ti>e of entryK

HHH HHH HHH

-:. &ny alien who re>ains in the Philippines in 7iolation of any li>itation or

condition under which he was ad>itted as a non* i>>i8rantK

-N. &ny alien who belie7es in, ad7ises, ad7ocates or teaches the o7erthrow by

force and 7iolence of the 'o7ern>ent of the Philippines, or of constituted law andauthority, or who disbelie7es in or is opposed to or8ani;ed 8o7ern>ent, or who

ad7ises, ad7ocates, or teaches the assault or assassination of public o@cials

because of their o@ce, or who ad7ises, ad7ocates, or teaches the unlawful

destruction of property, or who is a >e>ber of or a@liated with any or8ani;ation

entertainin8, ad7ocatin8 or teachin8 such doctrines, or who in any >anner

whatsoe7er lends assistance, Bnancial or otherwise, to the disse>ination of such

doctrinesK

HHH HHH HHH

-11. &ny alien who en8a8es in proBteerin8, hoardin8, or blacC*>arCetin8,

independent of any cri>inal action which >ay be brou8ht a8ainst hi>K



-12. &ny alien who is con7icted of any oJense penali;ed under "o>>onwealth &ct

$u>bered Four 4undred and Se7enty*Three, otherwise Cnown as the Re7ised

$aturali;ation /aws of the Philippines, or any law relatin8 to acLuisition of Philippine

citi;enshipK

HHH HHH HHH

!r( 'atchalian is co7ered by clause -2.K besides, the warrant for his eHclusion was

issued within a period of B7e years followin8 his entry(

/a> Shee 7s( %en8;on -93 Phil( 10=). is not applicable to !r( 'atchalian( n issue in

that case was the deportation of a >inor whose >other fraudulently entered thePhilippines by usin8 the na>e of a resident "hinese >erchant who is not her lawful

husband but a8ainst who> no deportation proceedin8s was initiated within B7e

years followin8 her entry( Said >other did in fact acLuire per>anent residence

status( Further>ore, the >inors >other ne7er clai>ed to be a Filipino citi;en(

$ 6 #F &// T4 F#R'#$', 7ote to 'R&$T the petition in '(R( $os( 9)122*

23, ST &S+ the Luestioned orders of respondents ud8e oselito +ela Rosa and

ud8e Teresita +i;on "apulon8 as ha7in8 been issued beyond their Gurisdiction,

#R+R the +S!SS&/ of "i7il "ase $os( 90*)E21E of the Re8ional Trial "ourt of

!anila and 3E31**90 of the Re8ional Trial "ourt of alen;uela, !etro !anila and to

+S!SS for lacC of >erit the "#U$TR*PTT#$(

F/"&$#, (, dissentin8A

re8ret a> unable to Goin the opinion written by >y distin8uished brother in the

"ourt, !r( ustice &(&( %idin, and , therefore, undertaCe to sub>it this separate

opinion(

For con7enience, the followin8 is a precis of the >atters discussed in detail below(



1( a8ree that the 6arrant of &rrest dated 1E &u8ust 1990 is defecti7e in its

lan8ua8e( The surroundin8 facts, howe7er, >aCe Luite clear that an a>ended

warrant of arrest or >ission order, or a new one correctly worded, >ay be issued by

>>i8ration "o>>issioner +o>in8o for the purpose of carryin8 out an eHistin8 and7alid 6arrant of Hclusion co7erin8 respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*

applicants for ad>ission(

2( The = uly 19=2 +ecision of the %oard of "o>>issioners -I%#"I. and 6arrant

of Hclusion re>ain 7alid and eJecti7e and enforceable a8ainst respondent 6illia>

'atchalian, and his co*applicants for that >atter( That +ecision re7ersed a = uly

19=1 decision of the %oard of Special nLuiry -I%SI. and held that respondent

6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants failed to subtantiate and pro7e their clai>

to Philippine citi;enship in 19=1( Respondent 6illia> 'atchalian does not clai>

Philippine citi;enship by any >ode of entitle>ent subseLuent to his application for

entry as a citi;en of the Philippines in 19=1, i(e(, by any act or circu>stance

subseLuent to his birth and supposed Bliation as a le8iti>ate son of Francisco

'atchalian, also a supposed citi;en of the Philippines(

3( n its +ecision in &rocha 7s( i7o, 1 the Supre>e "ourt upheld the 7alidity and

le8al eJect of the = uly 19=2 +ecision of the %#" and the 6arrant of Hclusion not

only a8ainst Pedro 'atchalian, the particular 'atchalian who was taCen into custody

by i>>i8ration authorities in 19=), but also a8ainst Pedros co*applicants, which

include respondent 6illia> 'atchalian( The 7alidity of the clai> to Philippine

citi;enship by Pedro 'atchalian, as a supposed descendant of Santia8o 'atchalian,

alle8edly a natural born citi;en of the Philippines, was directly placed in issue in the

19=1*19=2 proceedin8s before the %S and the %#", and by the Solicitor 'eneral

and Pedro 'atchalian in &rocha 7s( i7o -supra.( n upholdin8 the 7alidity and le8al

eJect of the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision that the 'atchalian applicants had not

substantiated their clai> to Philippine citi;enship, this "ourt in eJect ruled that the

'atchalian applicants were not Philippine citi;ens, whate7er their true nationality

>i8ht be(

E( Should this "ourt now deter>ine to eHa>ine once >ore the clai> to

Philippine citi;enship of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, a detailed eHa>ination of

the facts, includin8 the supposed status of Santia8o 'atchalian as a natural born

Philippine citi;enship, shows that those clai>s to Philippine citi;enship were indeed

not pro7en by respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants( Since

respondent 6illia> 'atchalian does not clai> to ha7e been naturali;ed as a



Philippine citi;en after rendition of the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision, he >ust

accordin8ly be held to be not a Philippine citi;en(

)( Should the le8al results thus reached see> harsh to so>e, respectfully

sub>it that the re>edy lies not with this "ourt which is char8ed with the application

of the law as it is in fact written, but with the political branches of the 'o7ern>ent(

t is those depart>ents of 'o7ern>ent which >ust consider the desirability and

wisdo> of enactin8 le8islation pro7idin8 for the le8ali;ation of the entry and stay of

aliens who >ay be in the sa>e situation as respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his

co*applicants(

1( Petitioner ar8ues that respondent 6illia> 'atchalians arrest follows as a

>atter of IconseLuenceI of the 6arrant of Hclusion issued by the %#" on = uly

19=2( This is opposed by respondent 'atchalian upon the 8round that the !ission

#rder or 6arrant of &rrest does not >ention that it is issued pursuant to a Bnal

order of deportation or 6arrant of Hclusion(

The !ission #rder or 6arrant of &rrest dated 1E &u8ust 1990 issued by petitioner

"o>>issioner +o>in8o, "+, reads in part as followsA

ntelli8ence #@cersD&8entsA &ll Tea>s

Tea> $o(

SubGectA 6illia>, uan, Francisco, ose, %enGa>in, onathan, Pedro, 'loria, lena,

all surna>ed 'atchalian

&ddressA %8y( "anu>ay, alen;uela, !(!(



H H*******************************************************************************H H

1( !aCe a warrantless arrest under the Rules of "ri>inal Procedure, Rule 113,Section ), for 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ct, Section 3:, para( aK Secs( E) and E=


2( !aCe a warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest under Rule 12),

Section 12(

3( +eli7er the suspect to the ntelli8ence +i7ision and i>>ediately conduct

custodial interro8ation, after warnin8 the suspect that he has a ri8ht to re>ain

silent and a ri8ht to counselK

E( Prepare and Ble an a@da7it of arrest with the Special Prosecutors #@ce and,

in case of a search, prepare and Ble an in7entory of the properties sei;ed, 7eriBed

under oath followin8 #@ce !e>orandu> #rder $o( E)

HHH HHH HHH

The abo7e !ission #rder >erely referred to Section 3: -a. of the >>i8ration &ct,

as a>ended, and to Sections E) and E= of the &d>inistrati7e "ode -should be

>>i8ration /aw., and that its wordin8 su88ests that the arrest is sou8ht to be

carried out for the purpose of carryin8 out a preli>inary in7esti8ation or custodial

interro8ation rather than for the purpose of enforcin8 a Bnal order of deportation or

warrant of eHclusion( !ore speciBcally, the !ission #rder failed to >ention the = uly

19=2 %#" +ecision and 6arrant of Hclusion( &t the sa>e ti>e, there is no

8ainsayin8 the fact that the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision and 6arrant of Hclusion doeHist and beca>e Bnal and, as discussed in detail below, re>ain 7alid and eJecti7e(

t should be noted also that by = Septe>ber 1990, Special Prosecutor !abolo had

Bled a !anifestation or !otion before the %ureau of >>i8ration eHplicitly referrin8

to the 6arrant of Hclusion issued a8ainst respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his

ori8inal co*applicants for ad>ission in 19=1, which had been passed upon in &rocha



t is, howe7er, insisted by respondent 6illia> 'atchalian that the 6arrant of

Hclusion >ay no lon8er be eHecuted or i>ple>ented as a8ainst hi> in 7iew of the

passa8e of approHi>ately twenty*ei8ht -2N. years since the issuance of such

6arrant( Respondent 'atchalian here relies upon Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration

&ct which states thatA

Sec( 3: -b.( +eportation >ay be eJected under clauses 2, 3, :, N, 11 and 12 of the

Par( -a. of this Section at any ti>e after entry, but shall not be eJected under any

other clauses unless the arrest in the deportation proceedin8s is >ade within B7e

-). years after the cause for deportation arises ( ( ( ->phasis supplied.

Ha>ination of the abo7e Luoted Section 3: -b. shows that the B7e -). year*

li>itation is applicable only where deportation is sou8ht to be eJected under

clauses of Section 3: -a. other than clauses 2, :, N, 11 and 12K that where

deportation or eHclusion is sou8ht to be eJected under clauses 2, :, N 11 and 12 of

Section 3: -a., no period of li>itation is applicableK and that, to the contrary,

deportation or eHclusion >ay be eJected Iat any ti>e after entry(I

Ha>ination of conte>poraneous facts shows that the 'o7ern>ent has sou8ht to

eJect the eHclusion and deportation of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian upon the

8round that he had entered the country as a citi;en of the Philippines when he was

not lawfully ad>issible as such at the ti>e of entry under Section 3: -a. -2., since

the %#" had held hi> and the other 'atchalians there in7ol7ed as not properlydocu>ented for ad>ission, under Section 29 -a. -1:. of the >>i8ration &ct, as

a>ended( #n : uly 1990, the &ctin8 +irector of the $ational %ureau of n7esti8ation

-I$%I. initiated the proceedin8s i>>ediately before us by writin8 to the Secretary

of ustice reco>>endin8 that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, and his co*applicants

co7ered by the 6arrant of Hclusion dated = uly 19=2, be char8ed withA Iiolation

of Section 3: -a., para8raphs 1 and 2, in relation to Section E) -c., -d. and -e. of

"o>>onwealth &ct =13 as a>ended, also Cnown as the >>i8ration &ct of 19E0(I

The Secretary of ustice endorsed this reco>>endation to >>i8ration

"o>>issioner +o>in8o for in7esti8ation and i>>ediate action( #n 20 &u8ust 1990,

Special Prosecutor !abolo Bled a char8e sheet a8ainst respondent 6illia>'atchalian which speciBed the followin8 char8esA

The respondent is an alien national who unlawfully 8ained entry into the Philippines

without 7alid tra7el docu>ent in 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ctK Sec( 3: par( a, sub

pars( -1. and -2.K



That respondent bein8 an alien >isrepresented hi>self as Philippine "iti;en by false

state>ents and fraudulent docu>ents in 7iolation of the >>i8ration &ct, Sec( E),

par( -c., -d. and -e.(

That respondent bein8 an alien national is an undocu>ented person classiBed as

eHcludable under the >>i8ration &ct, Sec( 29 -a. sub par( -1:.(

HHH HHH HHH

->phasis supplied.

Section 3: -a. -1. and -2., of "o>>onwealth &ct $o( =13, as a>ended, pro7ides as

followsA

Sec( 3: -a.( The followin8 aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the



deter>ination by the %oard of "o>>issioners of the eHistence of the 8round fordeportation as char8ed a8ainst the alien(

-1. &ny alien who enters the Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this act by

>eans of false and >isleadin8 state>ents or without inspection and ad>ission by

the >>i8ration authorities at a desi8nated port of entry or at any place other than

at a desi8nated port of entryK -&s a>ended by Republic &ct $o( )03.(

-2. &n alien who enters the Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this act, whowas not lawfully ad>issible at the ti>e of entry(

HHH HHH HHH



->phasis supplied.

Section 3: -a. -2., Luoted abo7e, relates bacC to Section 29 -a. of the >>i8ration

&ct, as a>ended, which lists the classes of alien eHcluded fro> entry in the

Philippines, as followsA

Sec( 29( -a.( The followin8 classes of aliens shall be eHcluded fro> entry into the

PhilippinesK

HHH HHH HHH

-1:. Persons not properly docu>ented for ad>ission as >ay be reLuired under the

pro7isions of this act( ->phasis supplied.

Thus, in the instant case, the net result is that no ti>e li>itation is applicable in

respect of the carryin8 out of the 6arrant of Hclusion issued in 19=2(

& little reection su@ces to show why this >ust be so( 6hat was in7ol7ed in 19=1

when the supposed children and 8randchildren of Santia8o 'atchalian Brst

descended upon the Philippines, was the ri8ht of a person clai>in8 to be a

Philippine citi;en to enter for the Brst ti>e and reside in the Philippines( #n the part

of the 'o7ern>ent, what was at staCe was the ri8ht to eHclude fro> the country

persons who had clai>ed the ri8ht to enter the country as Philippine citi;ens but

who had failed to substantiate such clai>ed status( &liens seeCin8 entry into the

Philippines do not acLuire the ri8ht to be ad>itted into the country by the si>ple

passa8e of ti>e( Hclusion of persons found not to be entitled to ad>ission as

Philippine citi;ens, >ust be distin8uished fro> the deportation of aliens, who, after

ha7in8 been initially lawfully ad>itted into the Philippines, co>>itted acts which

rendered the> liable to deportation(

$or>ally, aliens eHcluded are i>>ediately sent bacC to their country of ori8in( 2

This is so in cases where the alien has not yet 8ained a foothold into the country

and is still seeCin8 physical ad>ittance( 4owe7er, when the alien had already

physically 8ained entry but such entry is later found unlawful or de7oid of le8al



basis, the alien can be eHcluded any ti>e after it is found that he was not lawfully

ad>issible at the ti>e of his entry( Technically, the alien in this case is bein8

eHcludedK howe7er, the rules on deportation can be >ade to apply to hi> in 7iew of

the fact that the cause for his eHclusion is disco7ered only after he had 8ained

physical entry(

t is worth notin8 at this point that in &rocha 7s( i7o -supra., this "ourt upheld the =

uly 19=2 #rder of the %#" and the application of the 6arrant of Hclusion, in

respect of Pedro 'atchalian, e7en thou8h >ore than B7e -). years had elapsed by

the ti>e the "ourts +ecision was pro>ul8ated on 2= #ctober 19=:(

Thou8h respondent 6illia> 'atchalian is physically inside the country, it is the

8o7ern>ents basic position that he was ne7er lawfully ad>itted into the country,

ha7in8 failed to pro7e his clai> of Philippine citi;enship, and hence the 6arrant of

Hclusion of = uly 19=2, or a new 6arrant of Hclusion for that >atter, >ay be

eHecuted Iat any ti>eI under Section 3: -b.( t is the correctness of that basic

position which >ust be ascertained and in that ascertain>ent, the >ere passa8e of

ti>e is Luite peripheral in rele7ance considerin8 the eHpress lan8ua8e of Section 3:

-b.(

!y distin8uished brother, %idin, (, Bnally in7oCes &ct $o( 332=, and on the basis of

Section 1 thereof, would hold that where the arrest for purpose of deportation is

>ade >ore than B7e -). years after the cause for deportation arose, theprescripti7e period of ei8ht -N. years should be applied( &ct $o( 332= which tooC

eJect on E +ece>ber 192=, establishes prescripti7e periods in respect of cri>inal

prosecutions for 7iolations penali;ed not by the Re7ised Penal "ode but rather by

special acts which do not otherwise establish a period of prescription( n other

words, &ct $o( 332= establishes a statute of li>itations for the institution of cri>inal

proceedin8s( t is, howe7er, Luite settled that deportation proceedin8s cannot be

assi>ilated to cri>inal prosecutions for 7iolation either of the Re7ised Penal "ode or

of special statutes( 3 !oreo7er, &ct $o( 332= purports to be applicable only where

the special act itself has not established an applicable statute of li>itations for

cri>inal proceedin8s( t cannot, howe7er, be said that &rticle 3: -b. of the>>i8ration &ct -Luoted earlier. has not established an applicable statute of

li>itations( For, precisely, Section 3: -b. of the >>i8ration &ct states that

deportation >ay be eJected under certain clauses of Section 3: -a. Iat any ti>e

after entry(I #ne of those instances is, precisely, deportation upon the 8round

speciBed in "lause -2. of 3: -a. which relates to Iany alien who enters the

Philippines after the eJecti7e date of this act, who was not lawfully ad>issible at

the ti>e of entry(I Thus, the >>i8ration &ct, far fro> failin8 to specify a



prescripti7e period for deportation under Section 3: -a. -2., eHpressly authori;es

deportation under such 8round Iat any ti>e after entry(I t is, thus, 7ery di@cult to

see how &ct $o( 332= could apply at all to the instant case(

Finally, we >ust recall once >ore that what is actually in7ol7ed in the case at bar is

eHclusion, not deportation(

3( t is ur8ed by the 8o7ern>ent that &rocha 7s( i7o -supra. has already

resol7ed the clai> to Philippine citi;enship of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian

ad7ersely to hi> and that such rulin8 constitutes res Gudicata( Upon the other hand,

respondent 6illia> 'atchalian 7ehe>ently ar8ues that neither the = uly 19=2

%#"s +ecision nor &rocha deBnitely settled the Luestion of his citi;enship(

!y respectful sub>ission is that respondent 6illia> 'atchalians ar8u>ent

constitutes a hi8hly selecti7e readin8 of both the %#" +ecision and the +ecision in

&rocha 6ritten by (%(/( Reyes, ( for a unani>ous court( The = uly 19=2 +ecision of

the %#", in its dispositi7e portion, reads as followsA

$ 6 #F T4 F#R'#$' "#$S+R&T#$S, this %oard Bnds and hereby holds

that the applicants ose 'atchalian, lena 'atchalian, %enGa>in 'atchalian, uan

'atchalian, Pedro 'atchalian, 'loria 'atchalian, Francisco 'atchalian, 6illia>

'atchalian and ohnson 'atchalianQ herein ha7e not satisfactorily pro7ed their clai>

to Philippine citi;enship and therefore the +ecision of the %oard of Special nLuiry,

dated uly =, 19=1 ad>ittin8 the> as Filipinos is hereby re7ersed, and said

applicants should be, as they are hereby ordered eHcluded as persons not properly

docu>ented(

S# #R+R+( ->phasis supplied.

Since respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants in 19=1 clai>ed the ri8ht

to enter the country as Philippine citi;ens, deter>ination of their ri8ht to enter the

Philippines thus indispensably in7ol7ed the resolution of their clai> to Philippine

citi;enship( n other words, the deter>ination of that citi;enship in the instant case

was not a >ere incident of the caseK it was rather the central and indeed the only

issue that had to be resol7ed by the %#"( Re7iew of the 19=1 proceedin8s before

the %S shows that the sole issue before it was the supposed Philippine citi;enship of



the applicants( Thus, the 7ery sa>e issue of clai>ed Philippine citi;enship was

resol7ed by the %#" when it re7ersed the = uly 19=1 decision of the %S( This case

>ay be distin8uished fro> other types of cases, e(8(, applications for public utility

franchises, petitions for chan8e of na>e, applications for re8istration as 7oter, Blin8

of certiBcates of candidacy for an electi7e position, etc(, where the central issue is

not citi;enship althou8h resolution of that issue reLuires a deter>ination of theciti;enship of the applicant, candidate or petitioner(

The rulin8 of the %#" that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants for

ad>ission as Philippine citi;ens had not satisfactorily pro7ed their clai> to

Philippine citi;enship, can only be reasonably read as a holdin8 that respondent

6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants were not Philippine citi;ens, whate7er their

true nationality or nationalities >i8ht be( Thus, it appears to be >erely se>antic

play to ar8ue, as respondent 6illia> 'atchalian ar8ues, that the 19=2 %#" +ecision

did not cate8orically hold hi> to be an IalienI and that the %#" had >erely heldhi> and his co*applicants as Inot properly docu>ented(I The phrase Inot properly

docu>entedI was strictly and technically correct( For 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*

applicants had presented the>sel7es as Philippine citi;ens and as such entitled to

ad>ission into the country( Since the %#" reGected their clai>s to Philippine

citi;enship, 6illia> 'atchalian and his co*applicants were non*Filipinos Inot properly

docu>ented for ad>issionI under Section 29 -a. -1:., >>i8ration &ct as a>ended(

E( n &rocha 7s( i7o -supra., the Supre>e "ourt had before it the followin8

ite>sA

1( The = uly 19=1 +ecision of the %S which allowed the entry of respondent

'atchalian and his co*applicants as citi;ens of the PhilippinesK

2( & split %#" +ecision appro7in8 the = uly 19=1 %S decision, which had been

InotedI by two -2. "o>>issioners but reGected by "o>>issioner 'alan8 on 1E and

2= uly 19=1 and 21 &u8ust 19=1, respecti7elyK

3( The = uly 19=2 +ecision of the %#" in which the %#" had re7iewed >otu

proprio the 'atchalian proceedin8s before the %S and re7ersed the %S decision of

= uly 19=1K



E( The 6arrant of Hclusion dated = uly 19=2 issued pursuant to the = uly 19=2

+ecision of the %#"K and

)( & decision of the !anila "ourt of First nstance dated 31 uly 19=), rendered

in a habeas corpus proceedin8 brou8ht to eJect the release of Pedro 'atchalian

who had been taCen into custody by i>>i8ration o@cials pursuant to the = uly

19=2 6arrant of Hclusion(

The "ourt of First nstance -I"FI. decision ordered Pedro 'atchalians release upon

the 8round that the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecision had been issued beyond the one -1.

year period for re7iew of the %S decision of = uly 19=1( The "F decision was

re7ersed and nulliBed by the Supre>e "ourt(

The Supre>e "ourt held that the %#" +ecision of = uly 19=2 had not been

antedated and that it was 7alid and eJecti7e to re7erse and nullify the %S order

8rantin8 ad>ission to the 'atchalians as citi;ens of the Philippines(

The "ourt also held that the split %#" decision of uly*&u8ust 19=1 did not operate

to conBr> and render Bnal the %S decision of = uly 19=1, the split decision bein8

null and 7oid because it had not been rendered by the %#" as a body(

The "ourt further reGected Pedro 'atchalians ar8u>ent that he was not bound by

the = uly 19=2 %#" +ecisionA

t is ar8ued for the appellee that the >inutes in Hh( )*& refer only to the cases of

'loria, Francisco and %enGa>in 'atchalian( %ut the desi8nation of the case is I'loria

'atchalian, et al(I $o reason is shown why the case of these three should be

considered and 7oted upon separately, considerin8 that the clai>s to citi;enship

and entry of all were based on the sa>e circu>stances, applicants bein8 thedescendants of one Santia8o 'atchalian, a Filipino and that all their applications for

entry were in fact Gointly resol7ed by the %oard of nLuiry in one sin8le decision

-&nneH 1, petition, '(R( $o( /*2ENEE.( E



respectfully sub>it that the abo7e*Luoted rulin8 in &rocha disposes of the

contention here bein8 >ade by respondent 6illia> 'atchalian that he is not bound

by the +ecision in &rocha 7s( i7o, &rocha held that the 19=2 %#" +ecision was

7alid and eJecti7e and 6illia> was certainly one of the applicants for ad>ission in

the proceedin8s which be8an in 19=1 before the %S(

Respondent 6illia> 'atchalian contends that the "ourt in &rocha did not Bnd hi>

nor any of his co*applicants to be aliens and that all the "ourt did was to hold that

the = uly 19=2 %oard of "o>>issioners decision had not been antedated( This

contention cannot be taCen seriously( &s has already been pointed out se7eral

ti>es, the 19=2 %oard of "o>>issioners decision held that 6illia> 'atchalian and

his ei8ht -N. other co*applicants for ad>ission had not pro7ed their clai> to

Philippine citi;enshipK not bein8 Filipinos, they >ust ha7e been aliens, to be

eHcluded as persons not properly docu>ented( !oreo7er, a re7iew of the Rollo in

&rocha 7s( i7o shows that the parties there had eHpressly raised the issue of theciti;enship of Pedro 'atchalian in their pleadin8s( The Solicitor 'eneral, in his Bfth

assi8n>ent of error, ar8ued that the "ourt of First nstance had erred in declarin8

Pedro 'atchalian a Filipino, and si>ultaneously ur8ed that the = uly 19=2 decision

of the %oard of "o>>issioners was Luite correct( Pedro 'atchalian, upon the other

hand, contended that precisely because he was a Filipino, the %ureau of

>>i8ration had no Gurisdiction to eHclude hi>( )

The "ourt also said in &rochaA

Finally, it is well to note that appellee did not tra7erse the alle8ation of appellant

"o>>issioners in their return to the writ of 4abeas "orpus that appellee Pedro

'atchalian 8ained entry on the stren8th of a for8ed cable8ra>, purportedly si8ned

by the for>er Secretary of Forei8n &Jairs FeliHberto Serrano, and apparently

authori;in8 appellees docu>entation as a Filipino -par( 3aQ of Return, "(F(( Rec(,

pp( 1)*1=.( Such failure to deny i>ports ad>ission of its truth by the appellee,

establishes that his entry was irre8ular( $either has he appealed the decision of the

"o>>issioners of >>i8ration to the +epart>ent 4ead( =

Since the physical entry of Pedro 'atchalian was eJected si>ultaneously with that

of Francisco and 6illia> 'atchalian, on eHactly the sa>e basis and on the stren8th

of the sa>e for8ed cable8ra> alle8edly fro> then Secretary of Forei8n &Jairs

FeliHberto Serrano, it >ust follow that the entry of Francisco and 6illia> 'atchalian

was si>ilarly irre8ular( The applications for ad>ission of the nine -9. 'atchalians



were all Gointly resol7ed by the %S on = uly 19=1 on the identical basis that they

were all descendants of Santia8o 'atchalian, a supposed natural born Philippine

citi;en(

)( The purported re7ersal of the 19=2 %#" +ecision by "o>>issioner $ituda in

19:3, cannot be 8i7en any eJect( & close eHa>ination of the sa>e re7eals that

such purported re7ersal was hi8hly irre8ular(

Respondent 6illia> 'atchalian alle8es that !r( $ituda, bein8 in 19:3 &ctin8

"o>>issioner of >>i8ration, had the authority to re7erse the %#" +ecision of =

uly 19=2, since he -$ituda. had i>>ediate control, direction and super7ision of all

o@cers, clerCs and e>ployees of the %ureau of >>i8ration( "ontrol >eans,

respondent 'atchalian continues, the power to alter or >odify or nullify or set aside

what a subordinate o@cer had done in the perfor>ance of his duties and to

substitute the Gud8>ent of the for>er for that of the latter( :

Respondent 'atchalians 7iew is ob7iously awed( The "o>>issioners power of

control o7er the o@cers and e>ployees of the %ureau of >>i8ration cannot be

co>pared to the power of control and super7ision 7ested by the "onstitution in the

President of the Philippines -which was what 4a> was all about., for the

"o>>issioners 8eneral power of control cannot be said to include the power to

re7iew and set aside the prior Bnal decision reached by the %#"( The "o>>issioner

of >>i8ration, actin8 alone, cannot be re8arded as an authority hi8her than the%#" itself -constituted by the "o>>issioner and the two 2Q &ssociate

"o>>issioners., in respect of >atters 7ested by the 8o7ernin8 statute in such

%oard itself( #ne of these >atters is precisely the hearin8 and decidin8 of appeals

fro> decisions of the %S, and the >otu proprio re7iew of the entire proceedin8s of a

case within one -1. year fro> the pro>ul8ation of a decision by the %S( N

Respondent 'atchalian points to Section 29 -b. of the >>i8ration &ct as a>ended,

as e>powerin8 $ituda to re7erse the 19=2 %#" +ecision( Section 29 -b. reads as

followsA

Section 29( ( ( (

HHH HHH HHH



-b. $otwithstandin8 the pro7isions of this section, the "o>>issioner of

>>i8ration, in his discretion, >ay per>it to enter -sic. any alien properly

docu>ented, who is subGect to eHclusion under this section, but who is O

-1. an alien lawfully resident in the Philippines who is returnin8 fro> a te>porary

7isit abroadK

-2. an alien applyin8 for te>porary ad>ission(

t is di@cult to understand respondents ar8u>ent( For one thin8, Section 29 -b.

relates to an Ialien properly docu>entedI while respondent 'atchalian precisely

clai>s to be a citi;en of the Philippines rather than a resident alien returnin8 fro> a

te>porary 7isit abroad or an alien applyin8 for te>porary ad>ission(

t should be recalled that $itudas 19:3 +ecision appro7ed a rulin8 rendered by a

%oard of Special nLuiry in 19:3 that respondent 'atchalian was properly

docu>ented, a rulin8 which was precipitated by a IPetition for Rehearin8I Bled by

respondent 'atchalian and his co*applicants in N !arch 19:2 before the %S( There

are a nu>ber of ob7ious defects in the action of the %S( Firstly, the >otion for

rehearin8 was Bled way out of ti>e( Rule 3, % 22 of the >>i8ration Rules and

Re8ulations of 1 anuary 19E1 pro7ides as followsA

&t any ti>e before the alien is deported, but not later than se7en days fro> the

date he recei7es notice of the decision on appeal of the %oard of "o>>issioners,

the applicant or his attorney or counsel >ay Ble a petition for rehearin8 only on the

8round of newly disco7ered e7idence( Such petition shall be in writin8 and shall set

forth the nature of the e7idence disco7ered and the reason or reasons why it was

not produced before( ( ( ( ->phasis supplied.

Respondent 'atchalians and his co*applicants >otion for rehearin8 was Bled, not

se7en -:. days but rather ten -10. years after notice of the 19=2 %#" +ecision had

been recei7ed by the>( Secondly, Rule 3, % 2) of the >>i8ration Rules and

Re8ulations prescribed that any >otion for rehearin8 shall be Bled only with the

%oard of "o>>issionersK the 'atchalians >otion for rehearin8 was Bled with the



%S which then purported to reopen the case Iwithout Brst securin8 the consent in

writin8 of the "o>>issioner of >>i8rationI as reLuired by Rule 2, + 20(

Further>ore, the purported re7ersal of the 19=2 %#" +ecision was >ade not by the

duly constituted %#" in 19:3, but only by its "hair>an, then &ctin8 "o>>issioner

$ituda( !r( $itudas action ew in the face of Rule 3, % 22 of the >>i8ration Rules

and Re8ulation, which >andates that the decision of any two -2. >e>bers of the

%#" shall pre7ail( t thus appears that !r( $ituda purported to act as if he were the

entire %#"( ndeed, e7en the %#" itself in 19:3 could not ha7e lawfully re7ersed a

Bnal decision rendered by the %#" ten -10. years a8o( 9

6e >ust, Bnally, not lose si8ht of the rulin8 in &rocha 7s( i7o -supra. where the

Supre>e "ourt eHpressly outlined the procedure to be followed by the %#" in

resol7in8 cases before the>( This court was 7ery eHplicit in holdin8 that indi7idual

actions of >e>bers of the %#" are le8ally ineJecti7eA

( ( ( TQhe for>er >>i8ration "o>>issioners appeared to ha7e acted indi7idually in

this particular instance and not as a %oard( t is shown by the diJerent dates a@Hed

to their si8natures that they did not actually >eet to discuss and 7ote on the case(

This was o@cially >ade to record by the Secretary of ustice in his !e>orandu>

#rder $o( 9, on anuary 2E, 19=2, wherein he stated(

that for the past se7eral years, the %oard of "o>>issioners of >>i8ration has not

>et collecti7ely to discuss and deliberate in the cases co>in8 before it( "itation

o>ittedQ

ndi7idual action by >e>bers of a board plainly renders nu8atory the purpose of its

constitution as a %oard( The /e8islature or8ani;ed the %oard of "o>>issioners

precisely in order that they should deliberate collecti7ely and in order that their

7iews and deas should be eHchan8ed and eHa>ined before reachin8 a conclusion

-See Ryan 7s( 4u>phrise, /R& 191)F 10E:.( This process is of the essence of a

boards action, sa7e where otherwise pro7ided by law, and the salutary eJects of

the rule would be lost were the >e>bers to act indi7idually, without beneBt of

discussion(



The powers and duties of boards and co>>issions >ay not be eHercised by the

indi7idual >e>bers separately( Their acts are o@cial only when done by the

>e>bers con7ened in sessions, upon a concurrence of at least a >aGority and with

at least a Luoru> present( "itation o>ittedQ

6here the action needed is not of the indi7iduals co>posin8 a board but of the

o@cial body, the >e>bers >ust be to8ether and act in their o@cial capacity, and

the action should appear on the records of the board( "itation o>ittedQ

6here a duty is entrusted to a board, co>posed of diJerent indi7iduals, that board

can act o@cially only as such, in con7ened sessions, with the >e>bers, or a

Luoru> thereof, present( "itation o>ittedQ 10 ->phasis supplied.

The act of !r( $ituda of re7ersin8 the 19=2 +ecision of the %#" could not hence be

considered as the act of the %#" itself(

The pretended act of re7ersal 0of !r( $ituda >ust, therefore, be stricCen down and

disre8arded for ha7in8 been >ade in eHcess of his lawful authority( The 19:3 order

of $ituda was ineJecti7e to 7est any ri8ht upon respondent 'atchalian who, it is

worth nothin8, did not pretend to sub>it any newly disco7ered e7idence to support

their clai> to Philippine citi;enship already reGected by the 19=2 %#"( n essence,

!r( $ituda purported not >erely to set aside the 19=2 %#" +ecision but also the

19=: +ecision of this "ourt in &rocha 7s( i7o(

turn to an eHa>ination of the underlyin8 facts which >aCe up the basis of the

clai> of 6illia> 'atchalian to Philippine citi;enship( The >ost striCin8 feature of this

clai> to Philippine citi;enship is that it rests upon a fra8ile web constructed out ofself*ser7in8 oral testi>ony, a total lacC of o@cial docu>entation whether Philippine

or forei8n, of ne8ati7e facts and of in7ocation of presu>ptions without proof of

essential factual pre>ises( Put in su>>ary ter>s, the clai> of 6illia> 'atchalian to

Philippine citi;enship rests upon three -3. pre>ises, to witA



a( that Santia8o 'atchalian was a Philippine citi;enK

b( the supposed Bliation of Francisco 'atchalian as a le8iti>ate son of Santia8o

'atchalian, which leads to the inter>ediate conclusion that Francisco was a

Philippine citi;enK and

c( the supposed Bliation of 6illia> 'atchalian as a le8iti>ate son of Francisco

'atchalian leadin8 to the Bnal conclusion that 6illia> 'atchalian is a Philippine

citi;en(

respectfully sub>it that a careful eHa>ination of the facts >ade of record will

show that the correctness and factual nature of each of these layered pre>ises areopen to 7ery serious doubt, doubts which can only lead to the sa>e conclusion

which the %#" reached on = uly 19=2 when it re7ersed the %S, that is, that there

was failure to pro7e the Philippine citi;enship of 6illia> 'atchalian and of his ei8ht

-N. alle8ed uncles, aunts and brother in 19=1 when they Brst arri7ed in the

Philippines(

1( The supposed Philippine citi;enship of Santia8o 'atchalian >ust be

considered Brst( Santia8o was alle8edly born in %inondo, !anila, on 2) uly 190) to

Pablo Pacheco and !arciana 'atchalian( The records do not disclose anythin8 about

Pablo Pacheco but e7eryone, includin8 6illia> 'atchalian, assu>es that Pablo

Pacheco was a "hinese subGect and ne7er beca>e a citi;en of the Philippine slands(

The basic clai> of Santia8o was that his >other !arciana 'atchalian was a

Philippine citi;en and that !arciana was not lawfully >arried to Pablo Pacheco and

that conseLuently, he -Santia8o. was an ille8iti>ate son of !arciana 'atchalian(

The Brst point that should be >ade in respect of Santia8os clai> was that he had

always re8arded hi>self as a "hinese citi;en until around 19)N or 19=0, that is,

when he reached the a8e of )3 or )) years( Santia8o, by his own testi>ony, li7ed

the bulC of his adult life in "hina where he went in 192E at a8e 19 and where he

stayed for about 13 years returnin8 to the Philippines for the Brst ti>e in 193:( 4e

returned in the sa>e year to "hina, stayed there for another nine -9. years, and

then ca>e bacC to the Philippines a8ain in 19E=( 4e once >ore left the Philippines

for "hina on 1E &pril 19E: and returned on 1E une 19E:( Upon his second return to

the Philippines in 19E=, he docu>ented hi>self as a "hinese nationalA he was

holder of "R $o( :)01 dated 3 !ay 19E=( 4e continued to be docu>ented as such,



the record showin8 that he was also holder of an &"R $o( &*219003 dated 13

anuary 19)1( Santia8o, a8ain by his own state>ent, >arried in "hina a "hinese

wo>an( This "hinese wife, howe7er, Santia8o ne7er brou8ht or atte>pted to brin8

to the Philippines and she alle8edly died in "hina in 19)1, or four -E. years after

Santia8o had per>anently returned to the Philippines(

n 19)N, when he was )3 years of a8e, Santia8o obtained a residence certiBcate

where for the Brst ti>e he described hi>self as a Filipino( t was also only in 19=0,

that is, when Santia8o was )) years of a8e, that he Bled a petition for cancellation

of his &"R ob7iously upon the theory that he had always been a Philippine citi;en( t

was at the hearin8 of his petition for cancellation of his &"R that Santia8o >ade his

oral state>ents concernin8 the supposed circu>stances of his birth, parenta8e and

>arria8e( Santia8os petition to cancel his &"R was apparently >ade in preparation

for eJorts to brin8 in, the succeedin8 year, a whole 8roup of persons as his

supposed descendants(

The second point that needs to be >ade in respect of Santia8os clai> of citi;enship

restin8 on his supposed status as an ille8iti>ate son of a Filipina wo>an, is that no

birth certiBcate bearin8 the na>e of Santia8o 'atchalian was e7er presented(

nstead, a baptis>al certiBcate bearin8 the na>e Santia8o 'atchalian was

presented showin8 the na>e of !arciana 'atchalian, Filipina, as >other, with the

na>e of the father unCnown( There was also presented a >arria8e certiBcate dated193= of oaLuin Pacheco, alle8ed brother of Santia8o 'atchalian, also showin8

!arciana 'atchalian as >other with the na>e of the father si>ilarly left blanC(

These two -2. pieces of paper, to8ether with Santia8os own state>ents to the

"iti;enship 7aluation %oard as well as the state>ents of oaLuin Pacheco to the

sa>e %oard, constituted the su> total of the e7idence supportin8 Santia8os clai>

to Philippine citi;enship and on the basis of which an #rder dated 12 uly 19=0,

si8ned by FeliH S( Talabis, &ssociate "o>>issioner, 8ranted the petition to cancel

Santia8os alien re8istry(

n so issuin8 his #rder 8rantin8 cancellation of Santia8os &"R, "o>>issioner

Talabis disre8arded Santia8os failure to present a birth certiBcate, in ob7ious

7iolation of rules of the %ureau of >>i8ration which eHpressly reLuire the

sub>ission of a birth certiBcate, or a certiBed true copy thereof, in proceedin8s

brou8ht for cancellation of an &"R upon the 8round that the petitioner is an

ille8iti>ate son of a Filipina >other( 11 t is well*settled that a baptis>al certiBcate



is proof only of the ad>inistration of baptis> to the person na>ed therein, and that

such certiBcate is not proof of anythin8 else and certainly not proof of parenta8e nor

of the status of le8iti>acy or

ille8iti>acy( 12

That #rder also casually disre8arded a nu>ber of other thin8s, one of which was a

docu>ent dated 1902 si8ned by !aHi>a 'atchalian, the >other of !arciana

'atchalian, statin8 that !aHi>a O

( ( ( residin8 in the "ity of !anila, >other of !arciana 'atchalian, un>arried, of 1N

years of a8e, her father bein8 dead, do hereby freely consent to her >arria8e with

Pablo "( Pacheco, of !anila, and that Cnow of no le8al i>pedi>ent to such

>arria8e( ->phasis supplied.

Such parental consent indicated that a >arria8e cere>ony would ha7e taCen place

shortly thereafter as a >atter of courseK otherwise, the consent would ha7e been

totally pointless( 7en >ore i>portantly, "o>>issioner Talabis #rder disre8arded

the testi>ony of Santia8o 'atchalian hi>self in the sa>e cancellation proceedin8s

that he -Santia8o. belie7ed that his parents had been >arried by the ustice of the

Peace of Pasi8, Ri;al( 13 n his #rder, "o>>issioner Talabis referred to the fact that

Santia8o 'atchalian had been Iinterchan8eably usin8 his parental and >aternal

surna>es( n school, he was Cnown as Santia8o Pacheco -"lass "ard for 1920*1921,!eisic !anilaK "ertiBcates of "o>pletion of Third and Fourth 'rades, !eisic Pri>ary

School.( %ut in his Special "edula "ertiBcate $o( =:=N12 dated 1: Septe>ber 193:,

and in taH clearance certiBcate issued on 2 #ctober 193:, he is referred to as

Santia8o 'atchalianK and in a "o>>unication dated = une 19E1, he was addressed

to as Santia8o Pacheco by the Philippine "harity SweepstaCes #@ce(I &t the 7ery

least, such use of both paternal and >aternal surna>es indicated that Santia8o was

uncertain as to his supposed ille8iti>acy( n our case law, >oreo7er, the use of a

paternal surna>e >ay be re8arded as an indication of possession of the status of a

le8iti>ate or acCnowled8ed natural child( 1E

Perhaps the >ost i>portant aspect of "o>>issioner Talabis #rder 8rantin8

cancellation of Santia8os &"R, is that such #rder failed to 8i7e any wei8ht to the

presu>ption in law in fa7or of >arria8e, a presu>ption si8niBcantly reinforced by

the parental consent 8i7en by !aHi>a 'atchalian to the >arria8e of her dau8hter

!arciana 'atchalian to one Pablo "( Pacheco( & related presu>ption is that in fa7or

of the le8iti>acy of oJsprin8 born of a >an and wo>an co>portin8 the>sel7es as



husband and wife( 1) respectfully sub>it that these presu>ptions cannot be

successfully o7erthrown by the si>ple self*ser7in8 testi>ony of Santia8o and of his

alle8ed brother oaLuin Pacheco and by the two -2. pieces of paper -the baptis>al

certiBcate of Santia8o and the >arria8e certiBcate of oaLuin Pacheco.( t see>s

rele7ant to point out that oaLuin Pacheco, too, was unable to present any birth

certiBcate to pro7e his supposed co>>on parenta8e with Santia8o 'atchalianK oaLuin was alle8edly born in 1902, the sa>e year that !aHi>a 'atchalian 8a7e her

consent to the >arria8e of !arciana 'atchalian and Pablo "( Pacheco(

The third point that needs to be underscored is that Santia8o 'atchalian did nothin8

to try to brin8 into the Philippines his supposed sons and dau8hters and

8randchildren since 19E:, when he returned per>anently to the Philippines, and

until 19=0( The story 8i7en by the nine -9. supposed descendants of Santia8o when

they Brst arri7ed in the Philippines was that they had left the Peoples Republic of

"hina and had 8one to !acao in 19)2 and there they stayed until they >o7ed to4on8Con8 in 19)N( t should also be noted that the youn8est supposed child of

Santia8o, %enGa>in 'atchalian, was said to ha7e been born in "hina in 19E2 and

was conseLuently only B7e -). years old when Santia8o returned per>anently to

the Philippines in 19E:( n other words, Santia8o 'atchalian beha7ed as if the nine

-9. supposed descendants did not eHist until 19=0 when "o>>issioner Talabis

#rder cancellin8 Santia8os &"R was issued(

t >ay also be noted that Santia8os 19)1 &"R application >entioned only two -2.

children of Santia8oA ose and lena( n 19=1, howe7er, Santia8o stated before thei>>i8ration in7esti8ator that he had a total of B7e -). childrenA ose, lena,

Francisco, 'loria and %enGa>in( Santia8os eHplanation stron8ly echoes a co>>on

lawyers eHcuse for failure to seasonably Ble so>e pleadin8, and, it is respectfully

sub>itted, is eLually contri7ed and unpersuasi7eK that he had his clerC Bll up the

&"RK that he 8a7e his clerC four -E. na>es -not B7e )Q.K that the clerC had si>ply

failed to Bll up the &"R correctly( n its = uly 19=2 +ecision, the %#" noted that

Iwhile the two -2. na>es listed in Santia8osQ &"R applicationQ ose and lena,

bear the sa>e na>es as two of the 9Q applicants, the diJerence in the a8es of said

persons co>pared to the said applicants, casts serious doubts on their dentity(I 1=

t is su88ested in the >aGority opinion that the Luestion of citi;enship of Santia8o

'atchalian is a closed >atter which cannot be re7iewed by this "ourtK that per the

records of the %ureau of >>i8ration, as of 20 uly 19=0, Santia8o 'atchalian had

been declared to be a Filipino citi;en and that this forecloses re*openin8 of that

Luestion thirty -30. years later( >ust, with respect, disa8ree with this su88estion(

The ad>inistrati7e deter>ination by the %ureau of >>i8ration as of 20 uly 19=0



certainly does not constitute res adGudicata that forecloses this "ourt fro>

eHa>inin8 the supposed Philippine citi;enship of Santia8o 'atchalian upon which

pri7ate respondent 6illia> 'atchalian seeCs to rely( The "ourt cannot a7oid

eHa>inin8 the Philippine nationality clai>ed by Santia8o 'atchalian or, >ore

accurately, clai>ed on his behalf by 6illia> 'atchalian, considerin8 that one of the

central issues here is the tanability or untenability of the clai> of 6illia> 'atchalianto Philippine citi;enship and hence to entry or ad>ission to the Philippines as such

citi;en(

2( The second of the three -3. pre>ises noted in the be8innin8 of this section isA

that Francisco 'atchalian was the le8iti>ate son of Santia8o 'atchalian and

therefore followed the supposed Philippine citi;enship of Santia8o( This pre>ise has

in fact two -2. partsA -a. the physical Bliation of Francisco 'atchalian as the son of

Santia8o 'atchalianK and -b. that Santia8o 'atchalian was lawfully >arried to the

"hinese >other of Francisco 'atchalian( This pre>ise is re>arCable for the totalabsence of docu>entary support for either of its two -2. parts( Francisco was born in

&>oy, "hina in 1931, accordin8 to Santia8o( The su> total of the e7idence on this

pre>ise consists of Francisco 'atchalians own state>ent and that of Santia8o( $o

birth certiBcate or certiBed true copy thereof, or co>parable docu>entation under

"hinese law, was sub>itted by either Santia8o or by Francisco( $o secondary

e7idence of any Cind was sub>itted( $o testi>ony of a disinterested person was

oJered(

Santia8o 'atchalian clai>ed to ha7e been >arried in "hina in 192= to a "hinesewo>an, "hua 'i> Tee, out of which >arria8e Francisco was alle8edly born( $o

docu>entary proof of such >arria8e in "hina, whether pri>ary or secondary, was

e7er sub>itted( $either was there e7er presented any proof of the contents of the

"hinese law on >arria8e in 192= and of co>pliance with its reLuire>ents(

t is Br>ly settled in our Gurisdiction that he who asserts and relies upon the

eHistence of a 7alid forei8n >arria8e >ust pro7e not only the forei8n law on

>arria8e and the fact of co>pliance with the reLuisites of such law, but also the

fact of the >arria8e itself( n ao 5ee 7s( Sy*'on;ales, 1: the issue before the "ourtwas whether the >arria8e of petitioner ao 5ee to the deceased Sy 5iat in

accordance with "hinese law and custo> had been adeLuately pro7en( n renderin8

a ne8ati7e answer, this "ourt, speaCin8 throu8h "ortes, (, saidA



These e7idence >ay 7ery well pro7e the fact of >arria8e between ao 5ee and Sy

5iat( 4owe7er, the sa>e do not su@ce to establish the 7alidity of said >arria8e in

accordance with "hinese law and custo>(

"usto> is deBned as Ia rule of conduct for>ed by repetition of acts, unifor>ly

obser7ed -practiced. as a social rule, le8ally bindin8 and obli8atory(I The law

reLuires that Ia custo> >ust be pro7ed as a fact, accordin8 to the rules of

e7idenceI &rticle 12, "i7il "odeQ( #n this score the "ourt had occasion to state that

Ia local custo> as a source of ri8ht can not be considered by a court of Gustice

unless such custo> is properly established by co>petent e7idence liCe any other

factI Patriarca 7s( #rato, : Phil( 390, 39) -190:.Q( The sa>e e7idence, if not one of

a hi8her de8ree, should be reLuired of a forei8n custo>(

The law on forei8n >arria8es is pro7ided by &rticle :1 of the "i7il "ode which states

thatA

&rt( :1( &ll >arria8es perfor>ed outside the Philippines in accordance with the

laws in force in the country where they were perfor>ed, and 7alid there as such,

shall also be 7alid in this country, eHcept bi8a>ous, poly8a>ous, or incestuous

>arria8es, as deter>ined by Philippine law(

"onstruin8 this pro7ision of law the "ourt has held that to establish a 7alid forei8n

>arria8e two thin8s >ust be pro7en, na>elyA -1. the eHistence of the forei8n law as

a Luestion of factK and -2. the alle8ed forei8n >arria8e by con7incin8 e7idence

&don8 7s( "heon8 Sen8 'ee, E3 Phil( E3, E9 -1922.( 1N ->phasis supplied.

n the instant case, there was absolutely no proof other than Santia8os bare

assertion that a >arria8e cere>ony between Santia8o and "hua 'i> Tee had taCen

place in "hina in accordance with "hinese law( The contents of the rele7ant "hinese

law on >arria8e at the ti>e of the supposed >arria8e, was si>ilarly not shown(

Should it be assu>ed si>ply that the reLuire>ents of the 192= "hinese law on

>arria8e are identical with the reLuire>ents of the Philippine law on >arria8e, it

>ust be pointed out that neither Santia8o nor Francisco 'atchalian sub>itted proof

that any of the reLuire>ents of a 7alid >arria8e under Philippine law had been

co>plied with(



respectfully ur8e, therefore, that the reliance in the >aGority opinion upon our

conicts rule on >arria8e e>bodied in &rticle :1 of the "i7il "ode -now &rticle 2= of

the Fa>ily "odeK then Section 19 of &ct $o( 3=30. is unwarranted( The rule that a

forei8n >arria8e 7alid in accordance with the law of the place where it was

perfor>ed shall be 7alid also in the Philippines, cannot be8in to operate until after

the >arria8e perfor>ed abroad and its co>pliane with the reLuire>ents for 7alidityunder the >arria8e law of the place where perfor>ed, are Brst shown as factual

>atters( There is, in other words, no factual basis for a presu>ption that a lawful

>arria8e under "hinese law had taCen place in 192= in "hina between Santia8o

'atchalian and "hua 'i> Tee(

t >ust follow also that Francisco 'atchalian cannot si>ply rely upon a presu>ption

of le8iti>acy of oJsprin8 of a 7alid >arria8e( &s far as the record here is concerned,

there could well ha7e been no >arria8e at all in "hina between Santia8o 'atchalian

and "hua 'i> Tee -Gust as Santia8o had insisted that his father and >other hadne7er >arried each other. and that conseLuently Francisco 'atchalian could Gust as

well ha7e followed the nationality of his ad>ittedly "hinese >other(

3( The last pre>ise noted earlier is the supposed Bliation of 6illia> 'atchalian

as a le8iti>ate son of Francisco which resulted in 6illia>s followin8 the supposed

Philippine citi;enship of Francisco 'atchalian( 6illia> was, accordin8 to Santia8o

'atchalian, born in &>oy, "hina in 19E9( 4ere a8ain, Gust in the case of Francisco

'atchalian, there is a co>plete absence of conte>poraneous docu>entary

e7idence of the supposed Bliation of 6illia> 'atchalian as a le8iti>ate son ofFrancisco 'atchalian( 19 The only support e7er presented for such alle8ed Bliation

consisted of the oral state>ents of Santia8o 'atchalian, Francisco 'atchalian and

6illia> 'atchalian( t is di@cult to resist the i>pression that there tooC place here a

pyra>idin8 of oral state>ents, each restin8 upon another oral state>ent and all

8oin8 bacC to the supposed bastardy of Santia8o, a status suddenly disco7ered or

asserted by Santia8o in his ))th year in life( $o birth certiBcate, or co>parable

docu>entation under "hinese law, eHhibitin8 the na>e of 6illia> 'atchalian was

sub>itted(

Francisco 'atchalian stated that he had >arried a "hinese wo>an, #n8 Siu 5ioC, in

&>oy in 19E: accordin8 to "hinese custo>( #nce a8ain, we >ust note that there

was no proof sub>itted that a >arria8e cere>ony satisfyin8 the reLuire>ents of

I"hinese custo>I had e7er taCen place in "hina between Francisco and #n8 Siu

5ioCK neither was there any proof that a >arria8e Iaccordin8 to "hinese custo>I

was 7alid and lawful under "hinese law in 19E: and of factual co>pliance with the

reLuire>ents of the law and custo> in "hina concernin8 >arria8e( 20 #n8 Siu 5ioC



was alle8ed to ha7e died in !acau and ne7er ca>e to the Philippines( t >ust then

follow, once a8ain, that no presu>ption of a lawful >arria8e between Francisco

'atchalian and his alle8ed "hinese wife can be in7oCed by 6illia> 'atchalian( t

follows still further that 6illia> 'atchalian cannot in7oCe any presu>ption of

le8iti>acy in his own fa7or( &s in the case of his putati7e father Francisco, 6illia>

could as well ha7e followed the nationality of his concededly "hinese >other(

#ne Bnal noteA it >i8ht be thou8ht that the result ha7e reached is unduly harsh

considerin8 the prolon8ed physical stay of 6illia> 'atchalian in the country( %ut

this "ourt >ust apply the law as it is in fact written( respectfully sub>it that the

appropriate recourse of respondent 6illia> 'atchalian, should he feel that he has

so>e hu>anitarian clai> to a ri8ht to stay in the Philippines, is to the political

depart>ents of 'o7ern>ent( Those depart>ents of 'o7ern>ent >ay then consider

the wisdo> and desirability, in the li8ht of the interests of the country, of le8islation

per>ittin8 the le8ali;ation of the entry and stay in the Philippines of respondent6illia> 'atchalian and those si>ilarly situated( Unless and until such le8islation is

enacted, this "ourt really has no choice sa7e to apply and enforce our i>>i8ration

law and re8ulations and our law on citi;enship(

&ccordin8ly, 7ote to 'R&$T the Petition for "ertiorari and Prohibition in '(R( $os(

9)122*23, and to ST &S+ the ResolutionDTe>porary Restrainin8 #rder dated :

Septe>ber 1990 issued by respondent ud8e +ela Rosa in "i7il "ase $o( 90*)21E,

as well as the #rder of respondent ud8e "apulon8 dated = Septe>ber 1990 in "i7il

"ase $o( 3E31**90K and to R*&FFR! that respondent 6illia> 'atchalian is not aPhilippine citi;en(

!elencio*4errera, "ru;, Paras, Padilla, Re8alado, (, concur

Footnotes

M Rena>ed %ureau of >>i8ration as per Hecuti7e #rder $o( 292(

F/"&$#, (A dissentin8A



1 21 S"R& )32 -19=:.K 12N Phil( )== -19=:.(

2 Section 3=, "o>>onwealth &ct $o( =13 as a>ended, or >>i8ration /aw(

3 Tiu "hun 4ai and 'o Ta> 7s( "o>>ission of >>i8ration and the +irector of

$ational %ureau of n7esti8ation, 10E Phil( 9E9 -19)N.K /a Tan8 %un 7s( Fabre, N1

Phil( =N3 -19EN.(

E 21 S"R& at )39(

) Rollo of '(R( $o( 2ENEE, p( 32 -%rief for the Respondents*&ppellants, p( 2N.KRollo of '(R( $o( 2ENEE, p( E1 -%rief for the Petitioner*&ppellee, p( N.(

= 21 S"R& at )E1(

: "itin8 4a> 7s( %achrach, 109 Phil( 9E9 -19=N.(

N Section 2: -d., "o>>onwealth &ct $o( =13, as a>ended(

9 See "o>>issioner of >>i8ration 7s( 4on( Fernande;, et al(, 120 Phil( 1:N

-19=E.(

10 21 S"R& at )E0(

11 !e>orandu> "ircular, +epart>ent of ustice, dated 2N &u8ust 19)NK

&d>inistrati7e !e>orandu>, %ureau of >>i8ration, dated 1: !arch 19)2, cited in

(F( 4ernande; and #(&( +o>in8o, Philippine >>i8ration /aw and Procedure, -19:0

ed(,. p( E3:(



12 See, e(8(, People 7s( ille;a, 12: S"R& 3E9 -19NE.K !acadan8dan8 7s( "ourt

of &ppeals, 100 S"R& :3 -19N0.K Fortus 7s( $o7ero, 23 S"R& 1331 -19=N.K "id 7s(

%urna>an, 2E S"R& E3E -19=N.K idaurra;a 7s( "ourt of &ppeals, 91 Phil( E92

-19)2.K and "apistrano 7s( 'abino, N Phil( 13) -190:.(

13 The transcript of the in7esti8ation conducted on 12 February 19=0 in "% $o(

3N=0*R, n Re Petition to "ancel &lien Re8istry, Santia8o 'atchalian, petitioner,

&nneH I2I of pri7ate respondent 'atchalians I"o>>ent with "ounter*PetitionI in

'(R( $os( 9)=12*13 statesA

I>>i8ration n7esti8atorQ

t says here, Ithis is to certify that , the undersi8ned, residin8 in the "ity of

!anila, >other of !arciana 'atchalian, un>arried, of 1N years of a8e, her father

bein8 dead, do hereby freely consent to her >arria8e with Pablo "( Pacheco, of

!anila, and that Cnow of no le8al i>pedi>ent to such >arria8e(I 6as your father,

Pablo "( Pacheco, and >other, !arciana 'atchalian, ulti>ately or e7entually

>arried because of this consent of your 8rand>other

Santia8o 'atchalianQ

& es, was infor>ed by >y brother oaLuin Pacheco that our parents were

>arried by the Gustice of the peace of Pasi8, Ri;al(I ->phasis supplied.

n his subseLuent testi>ony in the sa>e proceedin8s, oaLuin Pacheco, and a

sin8ularly acco>>odatin8 i>>i8ration in7esti8ator who posed ob7iously leadin8

Luestions, sou8ht to soften the i>pact of Santia8os ad>ission that his parents

were >arriedA

I>>i8ration n7esti8atorQ

#r is it because Santia8oQ was asha>ed to ad>it that he was a le8iti>ate

child and that is the reason why he said your parents were >arried



oaLuin 'atchalianQ

& t >ay be also that he is asha>ed to >aCe it be Cnown that he is a le8iti>atechild that is why he said our parents are >arried(I -&nneH I%*9I of pri7ate

respondent 'atchalians I"o>>ent with "ounter*PetitionI in '(R( $os( 9)=12*13.

1E (8(, n Re !allare, )9 S"R& E) -19:E.K and &driano 7s( +e esus, 23 Phil( 3)0

-1912.(

1) See, in this connection, Rule 131, Section ) -cc. and -dd. of the Rules of

"ourt(

1= &nneH I3:I of "o>>ent with "ounter*Petition, '(R( $os( 9)=12*13(

1: 1=: S"R& :3= -19NN.(

1N 1=: S"R& at :E3*:EE(

19 6illia> 'atchalian presented his own >arria8e contract eHecuted in 19:3,

which showed as his parents Francisco 'atchalian and #n8 Siu 5ioC( This, of course,

has no probati7e 7alue for present purposes(

Dela Rosa Case

Documents

Transcript of Dela Rosa Case