Lex Rex Ph

Djumantan v. Domingo

Djumantan v. Domingo
G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995
Full Text Link

Lesson in Consti
Even though married to a Filipino abroad, a Foreigner must still follow due process for such marriage to be properly recognized here. Such as, declaring the marriage with the immigration.

Lesson on Immigration
The President to expel or deport aliens whose presence is deemed inimical to the public interest. Admission of foreigners is a matter of government’s prerogative.

The interest, which an alien has in being admitted into or allowed to continue to reside in the country, is protected only so far as Congress may choose to protect it (US Kaloudis v. Shauhnessy)

There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino citizens the right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent residency, in the Philippines.

The entry of aliens into the country and their admission as immigrants is not a matter of right, even if they are legally married to Filipino citizens.

Petitioner Djumantan FILED a petition that her marriage to a Filipino citizen, Bernard Banez, is valid.


  • Bernard Banez, married to Marina Cabael, left Philippines went to Indonesia to work and converted to Islam. May 17, 1974 married petitioner Djumantan.
  • January 1979 petitioner went to Manila as “guests” of Banez where latter executed “Affidavit of Guaranty and Support” to Djumantan and children as “temporary guests” under Immigration Act of 1940.
  • In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner.
  • March 1982, immigration status of petitioner was changed to permanent by virtue of same Act and has been issued alien certificate of recognition a month after.
  • Leonardo, Banez’s eldest son with Cabael, filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, then referred to CID (Commission on Immigration and Deportation).
  • Petitioner was detained, then manifested at first to depart voluntarily, but later changed heart, and moved for the dismissal of the deportation case by arguing that she was married to a Filipino.
  • September 1990, the CID revoked Djumantan’s visa and disposed that her marriage to Banez was irregular.
  • August 14, 1994, Bernard Banez died. Son leonardo withdrew objection to grant Djumantan permanent visa.
Plaintiff DjumantanDefendant
Respondents have no right to order her and Banez to live separately.
Her marriage to Banez was valid under Article 27 of P.D. No. 1085, the Muslim Code
Articles 109 CC, 68 FC, 34 MC (Muslim Code), and especially Article 110 CC, husband and wife obliged to live together.
Article 110, husband is required to fix conjugal residence.
CID could no longer order deportation because power had prescribed under Section 37(b) of immigration act
Her marriage to Djuamantan was irregular

CID denied reconsideration.
Who filed to SC: Djumantan


  1. First issue is Djamantan’s immigration status. Was her admission to the country legal?
  2. Does her marriage withdraw her from operation of immigration laws?
  3. Did the right to deport her prescribed?
  4. [Main petition] Was she validly married to a Filipino citizen?


  1. No. She was not lawfully admitted into the country and she did not lawfully acquire permanent residency. There was a blatant abuse of our immigration laws. The subsequent privileges were misrepresentation. Never was the marriage disclosed to the immigration authorities in her applications for temporary visitor’s visa and for permanent residency.
  2. No. The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does not withdraw her from the operation of the immigration laws governing the admission and exclusion of aliens
  3. Yes. Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940 provides that “entering through … false and misleading statements” is a ground for deportation. Aliens who acted under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 shall be arrested and deported anytime but will prescribe after five years. In Lam Shee v. Bengzon, Court ruled clause 1 prescribes after 5 years. CID’s action manifested their action to arrest and deport Djumantan.
  4. Yes, there is a law. But her false statement during entry does not ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen. She must have declared it. Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso facto (not a proper process) make her a Filipino citizen (or exempt her on immigration laws) and does not excuse her from her failure to depart from the country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as an alien (Joaquin v. Galang) Ponente: QUIASON, J.:

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Living Law

It is high time to amend our Civil and Family Laws to conform to societal sentiment and breathe life to what Justice Louis D. Brandeis calls “The Living Law”. – Atty. Eduardo

Read More »

Ombudsman v. CA and Binay Jr. Digest

GR 217126-27, 10 Nov 2015 Facts Ombudsman Conchita issued a preventive suspension order (PSO) against Binay Jr. et al of Plunder and violation RA 3019 in connection with the Makati Parking Building.

Read More »

Inspirational Quotes from Cases 1

The highest court of the land does not all the time speak in highfalutin legalese words but sometimes speaks in languages that are highly-relatable to the most ordinary man, endearing, spiritual, and

Read More »

Fraud and Undue Influence

Fraud There is fraud when, through the insidious (crafty, deceptive, tricky) words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not

Read More »

Barredo vs. Garcia

Facts In 1936, 16 year old Faustino Garcia died in an accident caused by the collision of the taxi driven by Pedro Fontanilla. Action was filed in CFI, Fontanilla was convicted and sentenced.

Read More »