G.R. No. L-22581 May 21, 1969
THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, petitioner, vs. JUAN GO TIENG and SZE SAU CHIEN (alias Benita Sy Pa), husband and wife, personally, and in behalf of their minor children GO KIM CHONG and GO SIONG LIM, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Juan Go Tieng obtained an order from the Bureau of Immigration cancelling his alien registration and an Identification Certificate declaring him a Filipino citizen by birth, based on a falsified birth certificate. By virtue of her marriage to Juan Go Tieng, Sze Sau Chien also secured similar documents declaring her a Filipino citizen. Upon discovery of the falsification, the Commissioner of Immigration revoked these orders and certificates, revalidated their alien documents, and required Sze Sau Chien to leave the country. Their children, Go Kim Chong and Go Siong Lim, arriving later, were ordered excluded. A deportation proceeding was then instituted against Juan Go Tieng. Before the hearing, the family filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the deportation proceedings and the orders for departure, and to have themselves declared Filipino citizens. The trial court dismissed the petition. After withdrawing an appeal, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration/new trial, which the trial court treated as a petition for relief from judgment, reopened the case, but ultimately reaffirmed its dismissal. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on Juan Go Tieng’s citizenship. The Commissioner of Immigration elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by the respondents in the Court of First Instance was a proper remedy to pre-empt the deportation proceedings and obtain a declaration of citizenship.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the dismissal of the basic petition by the Court of First Instance. The Court held that prohibition and mandamus were improper remedies. Prohibition does not lie as the Commissioner of Immigration acted within his jurisdiction in instituting the deportation proceeding under the Immigration Act. Mandamus does not lie to control the exercise of discretion by a public officer. The question of citizenship should have been addressed first in the administrative deportation proceeding before the Commissioner of Immigration, and the judicial suit was premature. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the procedural questions regarding the finality of the trial court’s decision and the propriety of the petition for relief.