2
Style of the Case: Lee Suan Ay vs Galang Court: Supreme Court Judge: PADILLA, J Facts and Procedural History Facts July 20 1954 Lee Chao, Lee Suan Ay’s father, posted a cash bond of P10,000 to guarantee the compliance by the temporary visitor and the bondsman with the terms and conditions of her stay in the Philippines, set for in the bondman's written undertaking August 21 1954 Lee Suan Ay, a Chinese citizen, arrived in the Philippines and was authorized to stay as a temporary visitor for 3 months, which was extended to March 25, 1955 March 18 1955Alberto Tan ,a Filipino citizen, and Lee Suan Ay requested the Justice of the Peace of Las Piñas, Rizal, to join them in marriage but the justice of the Peace refused to do so, because as she was over 18 but under 23 years of age, she had to obtain parental advice March 28 1955 bondsman wrote a letter informing the Commissioner of Immigration that his daughter was ill and confined at the Chinese General Hospital since 21 March 1955 and that as she might collapse during the return trip to Hongkong. She deferred her departure set for 23 March, and requesting that she be granted ten days extension of her authorized period of temporary stay in the Philippines to enable her to rest and recuperate April 1 1955 Lee Suan Ay and Alberto Tan were joined in marriage by the Justice of the Peace of Las Piñas, Rizal. After their marriage, they received a letter from the Commissioner of Immigration saying that their petition for extension was denied and the bond was forfeited by the government Procedural History April 11 1955, Lee Chiao asked for reconsideration of the order of forfeiture of the cash bond on the ground that she has ceased to be an alien when she married a Filipino citizen and followed the citizenship of her husband and she was sick so she failed to present herself to the Commissioner of Immigration within 24 hours from receipt of notice. The petition for reconsideration was denied. June 27 1956 Petitioners filed a complaint in the court of First Instance of Manila praying that the defendant return the bond or reduce the forfeiture to P1000 July 11 1956 defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it states no cause of action. July 14 1952 plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss July 19 1952 the defendants a rejoinder to the plaintiffs' opposition November 11 1956 Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, but left the reduction of the bond to the sound discretion of the Commissioner of Immigration the plaintiffs appealed Issues Whether or not the cash bond should be forfeited

Lee Suan Ay vs Galang

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Lee Suan Ay vs Galang Digest

Citation preview

Page 1: Lee Suan Ay vs Galang

Style of the Case: Lee Suan Ay vs Galang Court: Supreme Court Judge: PADILLA, J 

Facts and Procedural History Facts 

● July 20 1954­ Lee Chao, Lee Suan Ay’s father, posted a cash bond of P10,000 to guarantee the compliance by the temporary visitor and the bondsman with the terms and conditions of her stay in the Philippines, set for in the bondman's written undertaking 

● August 21 1954­ Lee Suan Ay, a Chinese citizen, arrived in the Philippines and was authorized to stay as a temporary visitor for 3 months, which was extended to March 25, 1955  

● March 18 1955­Alberto Tan ,a Filipino citizen, and Lee Suan Ay requested the Justice of the Peace of Las Piñas, Rizal, to join them in marriage but the justice of the Peace refused to do so, because as she was over 18 but under 23 years of age, she had to obtain parental advice 

● March 28 1955­ bondsman wrote a letter informing the Commissioner of Immigration that his daughter was ill and confined at the Chinese General Hospital since 21 March 1955 and that as she might collapse during the return trip to Hongkong. She deferred her departure set for 23 March, and requesting that she be granted ten days extension of her authorized period of temporary stay in the Philippines to enable her to rest and recuperate  

● April 1 1955­ Lee Suan Ay and Alberto Tan were joined in marriage by the Justice of the Peace of Las Piñas, Rizal. After their marriage, they received a letter from the Commissioner of Immigration saying that their petition for extension was denied and the bond was forfeited by the government 

Procedural History ● April 11 1955, Lee Chiao asked for reconsideration of the order of forfeiture of the cash                               

bond on the ground that she has ceased to be an alien when she married a Filipino                                 citizen and followed the citizenship of her husband and she was sick so she failed to                               present herself to the Commissioner of Immigration within 24 hours from receipt of                         notice. The petition for reconsideration was denied. 

● June 27 1956­ Petitioners filed a complaint in the court of First Instance of Manila                             praying that the defendant return the bond or reduce the forfeiture to P1000 

● July 11 1956­ defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it                               states no cause of action. 

● July 14 1952­ plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss ● July 19 1952­ the defendants a rejoinder to the plaintiffs' opposition ● November 11 1956­ Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, but left the reduction of the                           

bond to the sound discretion of the Commissioner of Immigration ● the plaintiffs appealed 

 Issues 

● Whether or not the cash bond should be forfeited 

Page 2: Lee Suan Ay vs Galang

 Judgement 

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against at the appellants.   

Holding ● YES. Lee Suan Ay violated the conditions of the cash bond when she stayed beyond the 

allowed time and failed to present herself to the Commissioner of Immigration. Upon investigation, She was not confined for a long time in the hospital and was fit to present herself.  Once a breach of the terms and conditions of the undertaking in the bond is committed, the Commissioner of Immigration may, under the terms and conditions thereof, declare it forfeited in favor of the Government. Her marriage does not relieve her from the liability from the bond because the violations were done before their marriage. She also do not have the qualifications for naturalization provided by law to become a FIlipino Citizen