BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v.

DELA ROSA
G.R. Nos. 95122-23 May 31, 1991 Bidin Dolot
petitioners Board of Commissioners, Board of Special Inquiry, Commissioner Andrea Domingo, Associate
Commissioner Regino Santiago, Members of the Board of Special Inquiry, Estanislao Canta, Leo
Magahom & Benjamin Kalaw
responden Hon. Joselito Dela Rosa, William Gatchalian
ts
summary The Commission of Immigration issued a warrant of arrest to William for alleged violation
of Immigration laws, but the Ct held that William is a Filipino citizen, not a Chinese
citizen. The Ct reached this conclusion after applying diff. presumptions: processual
presumption, presumption of validity of marriage and legitimacy.
DOCTRINE: There being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises a
presumption that it is the same as PH law.

facts of the case (A/N: case previously assigned in our Admin class)
In 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of
Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural mother, Marciana
Gatchalian. Santiago has a wife, Chu Gim Tee, and 5 children: Jose, Gloria, Francisco, Elena and Benjamin.
In 1961, private respondent William (then 12 y.o.) arrived in Manila from Hong Kong together with Gloria,
Francisco and Johnson. William and Johnson are Francisco’s sons. After investigation, the Board of Special
Inquiry No.1 rendered a decision admitting William and his companions as Filipino citizens. William was
issued Identification Certificate No. 16135.
In 1962, then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions rendered by the
Board of Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio by the Board of Special Inquiry. The Memo also
directed the Board of Commissioners to review prior cases decision, including William’s case. Consequently,
the Board reviewed and eventually reversed the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry. A warrant of
exclusion was thereafter issued. The Commission of Immigration sought to deport William but he opposed the
same resulting in so many procedural appeals and processes.
In 1970, the acting director of the NBI wrote the Secretary of Justice recommending that William be
charged with violation of Sec. 37 (a), pars. 1 and 2, in relation to Secs. 45 (c), and (d) and (e) of CA No. 613,1
as amended, also known as the Immigration Act of 1940. The Secretary of Justice indorsed said
recommendation to the Commissioner for Immigration for investigation and immediate action.
In 1990, the Commission on Immigration ordered the arrest of William who was released upon posting
P200,000 cash bond. He filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of Manila. Petitioners filed
a motion to dismiss which was denied.

issues + ratio

1. WON William should be declared as a Filipino citizen. YES.

1
Sec. 37 (a), CA No. 613. The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of
any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after
a determination by the Board of Commissioner of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien
Sec.45 Penal provisions: Any individual who— (c) obtains, accepts or uses any immigration document, to any person not
authorized by law to receive such document; (d) Being an alien, enters the PH without inspection and admission by the
immigration officials, or obtains entry into the PH by wilful, false, or misleading representation or wilful concealment of a
material fact; (e) Being an alien shall for any fraudulent purpose represent himself to be a PH citizen in order to evade any
requirement of the immigration laws.

1
Petitioners’ Argument: Santiago’s marriage in China as well as Francisco’s, also in China, were not supported
by an evidence other than their own self-serving testimony nor any showing what the laws of China were. For
the said marriages to be valid in this country, it should have been shown that they were valid by the laws of
China. There being none, the conclusion is that the marriages are not valid. Consequently, Santiago’s children
including Francisco, followed their mother’s Chinese citizenship. Similarly, William should follow his
mother’s Chinese citizenship.

Ct: No, as held in the Miciano case, apply processual presumption.

The lack of proof of Chinese law cannot be blamed on Santiago since he was not pressed by the Citizenship
Investigation Board at the time he was allowed entry. They were content to accept the testimony that the
marriage certificate was lost during the Japanese occupation in China. Much more that it cannot be blamed on
William, who was merely 12 y.o. then.

William’s legitimacy is sufficiently proven

Nevertheless, their testimonies as to their marriages, births and relationship to each other are admissible as
statements or declarations regarding family reputation or tradition in matters of pedigree (Sec. 34 Rule 130).
Furthermore, pursuant to Art.267 of CC:
Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of
status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws. (117a)
Such testimonies are competent proof of filiation under Art.172(2) of FC:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)

Santiago’s and Francisco’s marriages were also valid

The Philippine law following lex loci celebrationis adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid where
celebrated is valid everywhere. Referring to marriages contracted abroad, Art. 71 of CC (now Art. 26 of FC)
provides that
"[a]ll marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country [. . .]"
And any doubt as to the validity of the matrimonial unity and the extent as to how far the validity of such
marriage may be extended to the consequences of the coverture is answered by Art. 220 of CC in this manner:
"In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law
or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of
children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and
the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression.".
Bearing in mind the "processual presumption" enunciated in Miciano and other cases, he who asserts that
the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign law.

William is a Filipino citizen under our Constitution

Having declared the assailed marriages as valid, William follows the citizenship of his father Francisco, a
Filipino, as a legitimate child of the latter. Francisco, in turn is likewise a Filipino being the legitimate child of
Santiago who is admittedly a Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of
Immigration in an order dated 1960.

2
 Finally, respondent William belongs to the class of Filipino citizens contemplated under the Constitution,
which provides:
Sec. 1, Article IV. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution xxx

Since William’s admission in the PH, he has been living as a Filipino citizen
Since his admission as a Filipino citizen in 1961, William has continuously resided in the Philippines. He
married Ting Dee Hua in 1973 with whom he has 4 minor children. The marriage contract shows that said
respondent is a Filipino. He holds passports and earlier passports as a Filipino. He is a registered voter of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila where he has long resided and exercised his right of suffrage. He engaged in
business in the Philippines since 1973 and is the director/officer of the International Polymer Corp. and
Ropeman International Corp. as a Filipino. He is a taxpayer. Respondent claims that the companies he runs
and in which he has a controlling investment provides livelihood to 4,000 employees and approximately 25,000
dependents. He continuously enjoyed the status of Filipino citizenship and discharged his responsibility as
such until petitioners initiated the deportation proceedings against him.

2. WON a warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of investigation is
valid. NO.

In Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, it was held that "the constitution does not distinguish warrants
between a criminal case and administrative proceedings. Thus, if the purpose of the issuance of the warrant of
arrest is to determine the existence of probable cause, it cannot pass the test of constitutionality for only judges
can issue the same.
In the present case, the warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, clearly indicates that
the same was issued only for purposes of investigation of William Gatchalian. Furthermore, it took petitioners
28 years since the BOC decision was rendered in 1962 before they commenced deportation or exclusion
proceedings against respondent William in 1990. Undoubtedly, petitioners' cause of action has already
prescribed. Neither may an action to revive and/or enforce the decision dated July 6, 1962 be instituted after
10 years (Art. 1144 [3], CC).

J. Feliciano, dissenting opinion

The rule that a foreign marriage valid in accordance with the law of the place where it was performed shall
be valid also in the Philippines, cannot begin to operate until after the marriage performed abroad and its
compliance with the requirements for validity under the marriage law of the place where performed are first
shown as factual matters.
Thus, there being no presumption of a lawful marriage between Francisco and his alleged Chinese wife
that can be invoked by William, the latter cannot also invoke a presumption of legitimacy in his favor.
Consequently, William is not a Filipino citizen.