G.R. No. L-6784




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-6784 March 12, 1954 NATIVIDAD MIRANDA, LUIS MIRANDA, PEDRO MIRANDA, RAMON MIRANDA and FAUSTINO MIRANDA, petitioners, vs. DEPORTATION BOARD, respondent. Jacobo Gonzales for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Felix V. Makasiar for respondent. BAUTISTA, ANGELO, J.: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to restrain respondent from hearing the Deportation case filed against petitioners and, incidentally, to have an order issued requiring respondent to show cause why petitioners should not be released on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On November 17, 1952, petitioners were charged before the Deportation Board with having entered the Philippines through fraud and misrepresentation in that, being the children of Chinese parents, they succeed in showing through misrepresentation that they are the legitimate children of Faustino Miranda, a Filipino citizen, had with a woman named Puy Siok and that, by reason of such misrepresentation, they were landed in this country as children of a Filipino citizen. Because of these charges, petitioners were arrested and detained at the detention station of the Bureau of Immigration although later they were set liberty upon posting a bond of P1,000 each. On June 18, 1953, petitioners filed a motion to quash the case alleging that they are Filipino citizens and, therefore, the Deportation Board has no jurisdiction over them. The Deportation Board not only denied this motion but set the case for hearing on July 7, 1953, whereupon petitioner filed the present petition seeking the suspension of the hearing and their release. The main contention of petitioners is predicated upon the theory that the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board is confined to persons who are admittedly aliens and are found to be undesirable, and having alleged that they are Filipino citizens, said Board has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the charges filed against them. While the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board as an instrument of the Chief Executive to deport undesirable aliens exists only when the person arrested is an alien, however, the mere plea of citizenship does not divest the Board of its jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners should make "a showing that his claim is not frivolous" (Ng Fung Ho vs. White, 259 U.S., 275), and must prove by sufficient evidence that they are Filipino citizens. [Kessler vs. Strecker (1939) 307 U.S., 21, 35-36.] If such is the primary duty of petitioners, it follows that the Deportation Board has the necessary power to pass upon the evidence that may be presented and determine in the first instance if petitioners are Filipino citizens or not. This is inherent in, or essential to the efficient exercise of, the power of the Deportation Board (Laurencio vs. Collector of Customs, 35 Phil., 37.) It is not therefore correct to state that the question of citizenship should be determined exclusively by the courts. As this Court ruled in a recent case: Resuelto por la Junta que tiene jurisdiccion, es obvio que debe proseguir con el caso hasta su terminacion. Si la Junta halla infundados los cargos de indeseabilidad del recurrente, el caso habra terminado totalmente, pero si la halla indeseable, puede apelar contra el fallo, y si la apelacion fracasa, entonces sera el tiempo de considerar si demonstrando causa razonable debe haber un juicio ulterior sobre la ciudadana filipina que alega mediante habeas corpus. (Llanco vs. The Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-6272, prom. February 22, 1954.) The foregoing disposes of the claim relative to the illegality of petitioner's confinement. With regard to the contention that the Deportation Board has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the taking of a blood test upon the persons of petitioners to prove that they are not Filipino citizens, the same need not now be considered, it being a matter that said Board can look into in the exercise its incidental power to pass upon the citizenship of petitioners. Wherefore petition is denied, with costs against petitioners. The writ of preliminary injunction issued against respondent is hereby dissolved. Paras, C.J., Reyes, Pablo, Jugo, Bengzon, Labrador, Padilla, Concepcion, Montemayor and Diokno, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation