CO v.

DEPORTATION BOARD - In this case, it was found that there was substantial evidence to support petitioners’ claim of
Prohibition | 29 July 1977 |J. Fernando citizenship. It was noted that the Board’s brief could not assert categorically that the mother
of petitioners was an alien. All that they said was that her nationality is disputed.
Nature of Case: Prohibition and habeas corpus
Digest maker: Africa RULING: Decision of respondent Judge Jesus de Veyra, holding that petitioners are Filipino
SUMMARY: A deportation proceeding was filed against the petitioners, whose father was a citizens and that the Deportation Board was without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
Chinese merchant and mother was of disputed citizenship. It was alleged that petitioners deportation proceedings filed against them, is affirmed.
were Chinese, who failed to register as Chinese nationals with the Bureau of Immigration.
Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was denied, hence the present petition wherein it was alleged
that Baord has no jurisdiction since they are Filipino citizens.

DOCTRINE: When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship,

the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly
enjoin the deportation proceedings. It was likewise stressed that judicial determination is
allowable in cases when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence
supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the
belief that the claim is correct, In other words, the remedy should be allowed only in sound
discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding

FACTS:
1. A deportation proceeding was filed against the petitioners, whose father was a Chinese
merchant and mother was of disputed citizenship. It was alleged that petitioners were
Chinese, who failed to register as Chinese nationals with the Bureau of Immigration.
2. Upon filing bond for release, they filed motion to dismiss on the ground that Deportation
Board has no jurisdiction since they are Filipino citizens. This was denied, hence this
special civil action of prohibition and habeas corpus, with the decision as noted being in
their favor.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the judiciary may entertain the petition against the Deportation Board despite
pendency of deportation proceedings. — YES
- While the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies to deportation proceedings, the Chuang
Hio decision was expressly mentioned as an exception.
- Chuang Hio provides that when the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his
citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should
promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. It was likewise stressed that judicial
determination is allowable in cases when the courts themselves believe that there is
substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct, In other words, the remedy should
be allowed only in sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding.