Article 15.

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad. (9a)

Board of Commissioners vs. de la Rosa,

G.R. Nos. 95122-23 May 31, 1991

Facts:

- On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was

recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen
following the citizenship of his natural mother.

- Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board, Santiago Gatchalian testified that he

has five (5) children with his wife Chu Gim Tee, namely: Jose Gatchalian, Gloria
Gatchalian, Francisco Gatchalian, Elena Gatchalian and Benjamin Gatchalian

- On June 27, 1961, William Gatchalian, then a twelve-year old minor, arrived in
Manila - from Hongkong together with Gloria, Francisco, and Johnson, all
surnamed Gatchalian. They had with them Certificates of Registration and
Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram
bearing the signature of the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Felixberto Serrano,
and sought admission as Filipino citizens.
- After investigation, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision dated
July 6, 1961, admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino
citizens

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

- The actual date of rendition of said decision by the Board of Commissioners

(whether on July 6, 1962 or July 20, 1962) became the subject of controversy in
the 1967 case of Arocha vs. Vivo (21 SCRA 532) wherein this Court sustained
the validity of the decision of the new Board of Commissioners having been
promulgated on July 6, 1962, or within the reglementary period for review.

- Sometime in 1973, respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by the

July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion, filed a motion for re-hearing with the Board of
Special Inquiry where the deportation case against them was assigned.

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

- In 1990 acting director of NBI wrote to the DOJ recommending that Gatchalian
and others covered by the warrant of exclusion be charged with violation of the
Immigration act. The SOJ indorsed the recommendation and admission order
was issued by Commissioner Domingo of the CID ordering the arrest
of Gatchalian. The latter appeared before Commissioner Domingo on August 20,
1990 and was released on the same day upon posting P200,000.00 cash bond.

- William Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunction
before RTC presided by Judge Dela Rosa docketed as Civil Case No. 90-54214.

- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 90-54214 alleging that
respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the Board of Commissioners and/or the
Board of Special Inquiry. Nonetheless, respondent judge dela Rosa issued the
assailed order dated September 7, 1990, denying the motion to dismiss.

- Meanwhile, on September 6, 1990, respondent Gatchalian's wife and minor

children filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela presided by
respondent judge Capulong Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 for injunction with writ of
preliminary injunction.
Petitioners argue the following:
 The judges have no jurisdiction over petitioner and the subject matter;
That assuming the judges had jurisdiction, they acted with grave abuse of
discretion by hearing the deportation case and in effect determined Gatchalian’s
citizenship;
That respondent judges disregarded the cases of Arocha v Vivo and Vivo v Acra
which put to finality the order of the Board of Commissioners