BOARD OF COMMISSIONER (CID) vs. DELA ROSA et al.

, 197 SCRA 853 (1991)

Citizenship and alienage; Citizenship and Res judicata; Bureau of Immigration

FACTS:
Santiago Gatchalian, an illegitimate child to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother,
was recognized as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his mother.
Santiago also declared that he has 5 children with his Chinese wife Chu Gin Tee, one of them
was Francisco (William Gatchalian’s father). In 1962, 12-year old William and his father
Francisco, arrived in Manila from Hong Kong. They had with them Certificates of Registration
and Identity issued by the Philippine consulate in Hong Kong and they sought admission as
Filipino citizens. Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 (BSI1) admitted William and his companions
as Filipino citizens. Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions
purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners (BOC) on appeal or on
review. All cases were reviewed, including that of William. The BOC reversed the initial
decision of the BSI1 and ordered the exclusion of William Gatchalian. A warrant of exclusion
was issued alleging that the BOC decision was final and executory.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen based on the validity of his parents’
marriage abroad.
2. Whether or not the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship

RATIO:
1. Yes, William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen. His grandfather, Santiago Gatchalian, was
born of a Filipina mother, despite being an illegitimate child. His father, Francisco
Gatchalian, and he were certified as Filipinos by the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong.
However, this was contested by the BOC after the review. The Court held that it is not the
respondent’s fault that they weren’t able to produce any documentation regarding the
validity of the marriages in China. The Citizenship Investigations Board, upon asking of
proof of said marriages, were satisfied with the testimony of Santiago that the Marriage
Certificate was lost or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. Much more can
this deficiency be blamed on William Gatchalian, who was only a minor during his
migration to the Philippines. Santiago and Francisco Gatchalian’s testimonies were
admissible in evidence as declarations regarding their family’s reputation. Any doubt to
these declarations is cast aside by Art. 226, which leans toward the validity of the marriage.
Therefore, the testimonies are considered competent proof. Therefore, the marriages are
considered valid and Francisco follows the nationality of his father, as a legitimate child
of the latter. The warrant of arrest by the Board of Commissioners and the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation was invalid. Pursuant to Sec. 37 (a) of Commonwealth Act
613, a warrant of arrest may only be issued by the Bureau of Immigration) if the sole
purpose of the arrest is to execute a final order of deportation.

2. Citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata, hence it has to be threshed out again
and again as the occasion may demand. An exception was laid by this Court in Burca vs.
Republic, the following must be present: 1) a person's citizenship must be raised as a
material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2) the Solicitor General or his
authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and 3) the finding or
citizenship is affirmed by this Court.