On 21 August 1954 Lee Suan Ay, a Chinese  citizen, arrived in the Philippines and was  admitted and authorized to stay as a temporary  visitor for a period of three months, which was extended to 25  March 1955.  Before her  arrival  or on  20 July  1954, Lee Chiao, her father, posted a cash bond in the  sum  of P10,000 (Annex  A) 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 (Annex B).  On 18 March 1955, Alberto 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.   On 28 March 1955, the 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  (Annex  C).  On 1  April  1955,  Lee Suan Ay  and Alberto Tan were joined in marriage by the Justice of the Peace of Las Piñas,  Rizal (Annex D).  After their marriage,  they received a letter from the Commissioner of Immigration dated  1 April 1955 denying their petition for extension of her temporary  stay in the Philippines  and declaring the  cash bond of P10,000 posted  by Lee Chiao  forfeited in favor of the Government (Annex E).  On 11 April 1955, Lee Chiao asked for reconsideration of the order of forfeiture  of the cash bond on the ground  that having married a Filipino citizen,  Lee  Suan Ay follows the citizenship of her  husband and ceased  to  be  an alien temporary visitor, and that for that reason the cash bond filed should be returned to him;  and that  her failure to present herself to the Commissioner of Immigration within 24 hours from  receipt of notice  was due to illness  and loss of weight  (Annex F).  The petition for reconsideration  was  denied  (Annex  G).  Notwithstanding repeated demands the defendants, the Commissioner of Immigration, the Accounting Officer of the Bureau of Immigration, the  Auditor  General  and  the  Treasurer of the Philippines, refused and  still refuse  to return to the plaintiff Lee Chiao the sum forfeited.  Upon the foregoing allegations in their complaint filed  in  the Court of First In stance of Manila on 27 June 1956, the plaintiffs pray that the  defendants be ordered  to refund to Lee Chiao the sum of P10,000 forfeited to  the Government, or to reduce the forfeiture to  P1,000; and that they be  granted other just and  equitable relief (Civil No. 30056).

On 11  July 1956,  the defendants moved for the  dis missal of the complaint  on  the ground that it states no cause  of  action.  In support of their motion they aver that the forfeiture of the cash bond was valid and  legal because of the failure of the bondsman to cause or effect the departure of Lee Suan  Ay upon termination  of her temporary stay  (25 March  1955)  and to present  her to the Bureau of Immigration  within 24 hours from  receipt of notice, in  violation of the terms and conditions of the undertaking on the bond (Annex  B).

On 14 July 1952 the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss; on 19 July the defendants a rejoinder to the plaintiffs' opposition. On 11 November 1956, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, but left the reduction  of the bond to the sound discretion  of the Commissioner of Immigration.

The plaintiffs have appealed.

The pertinent terms and conditions of the bond  (Annex  B), provide:

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned has  made a cash  bond of P10,000.00,  Philippine currency with the Bureau of Immigration (O.R. No. 6729734,  dated July 20, 1954), which cash bond is subject to the following conditions:

*       *      *        *       *        *      *

(b) That the undersigned  undertakes  to make Lee  Suan Ay at all times available  to and  to present  her within 24 hours after receipt of notice to produce before the immigration authorities for the investigation of his or her right to further stay in the Philippines.

(c) That in  case  Lee  Suan Ay, after such inquiry is found to have violated any limitation or  condition  under which he or she was admitted as non-immigrant  and is subject  to  deportation, the undersigned undertakes to produce him or her for deportation within  24  hours after receipt of demand to do so.

(h) * *  *

That the undersigned was duly informed  and fully understands (1) that no temporary visitor or transient  can during  the period of her temporary  stay request for a change of her status into a permanent  one; (2) that no application for extension of temporary stay of said temporary visitor or  transient shall be entertained unless  the  same is filed with the Office in  charge at the  port of arrival  not  less  than seven (7)  days nor more  than fourteen  (14) days prior  to the expiration  of  the time fixed for her departure from the  Philippines; (3)  that,  except  in  cases provided  by law, no  extension or temporary stay will be granted to a temporary visitor  or transient  if she  has stayed in the Philippines  for one year from the date of entry; and that  (4)  no application for extension shall also  be granted unless the temporary  visitor's  or transient's  passport  is valid for a period of thirty days after the expiration  of the  requested extension.

(i)*  *   *

That breach of any of the conditions above-mentioned shall entitle the Commissioner of  Immigration  to  declare this cash bond or part thereof  forfeited,  but shall not release  the  undersigned from the obligation to produce said Lee Suan Ay for such, action as may be  taken  against her.  No modification of this agreement shall be valid and effective unless made in  writing and signed  by the Commissioner of Immigration or his duly authorized representatives.  (Pp. 10-14,  Rec. on App.)

In his  letter to the appellant Lee Chiao, dated 1 April 1955, the appellee Commissioner of  Immigration recites the following facts and circumstances leading  to the forfeiture of the cash bond:

* * * I would like  to call your attention to the fact  that  your daughter Lee Suan Ay, arrived in the  Philippines on August 21, 1954, as a  temporary visitor for a three month stay.  On November 5, 1954, you petitioned for  an  extension  and the same was favorably considered by the Honorable, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, granting your daughter an extension up to January 21, 1955, under the conditions that her reentry permit to  Hongkong and her cash bond continue to be valid.  On January 28, 1955, you again requested  for an extension of five more days from the expiration of her stay on January 31, 1955  and the  same was again granted by the Honorable, the Secretary  of Foreign Affairs "provided further that she present a confirmed booking or airline ticket  on  an airplane which takes her to Hongkong on February 6, 1955."

In spite of the terms of the above last extension granted your daughter, on  February 1, 1955,  you again petitioned for  a three months extension, counted from February 5, 1955, manifesting that the cash  bond of P10,000.00  to  guarantee her  departure  will be kept  valid and promising  that ten  days before her scheduled  departure to Hongkong, you  will present  a confirmed booking or air line ticket duly paid for her trip  to Hongkong.  On February 7, 1955,  you were properly notified that  they stay up  to  March  25, 1955  was granted by the  Department of  Foreign  Affairs,  and as a matter of fact, you  presented from the Philippine Airlines  (a confirmed booking)  dated  February 7,  1955,  showing  that  Lee Suan  Ay was booked on Flight No. 304 leaving Manila for Hongkong  on March 23, 1955.

Rather  (than)  comply with the terms and conditions of the last extension above referred to, on March 1, 1955, you again requested for  another  extension of three months, which, however, was denied by the  Honorable, the  Secretary of  Foreign  Affairs, in their  indorsement of  March  22, 1955.

It will thus clearly appear that  Lee  Suan  Ay is  now illegally in this  country for staying beyond her  authorized stay.

In a letter dated March  26, 1955 this Bureau instructed  you to present  the person of Lee Suan Ay within twenty-four hours after receipt hereof, with the admonition that upon your  failure to  do so, the cash bond in the amount of P10,000.00 covered by your undertaking  for her temporary release will be confiscated.  Rather than comply with this instruction, you wrote us on March 28, 1955, informing us that your daughter "has been confined at the Chinese General  Hospital since March  21, 1955 and I am afraid  she might collapse  during her trip to Hongkong so I deferred her leaving scheduled on the  23rd," and  requested  this Office for  a ten-day period within which to prepare for departure.  A verification made on your allegation showed, however,  that contrary  to said  allegation  that she has  been  confined at the  Chinese General Hospital since March  21, 1955, she was admitted  thereat only for one day and  that was  on  March  22,  1955,  for  some  abdominal ailment. The  Medical  Officer further  reported "that Lee Suan  Ay is fairly strong and can walk without complaint.  Her heart is normal and so is her pulse and that there is no tenderness at the abdomen. There  is no  evidence of  jaundice  or anemia.  She is fairly  strong and fit to travel."  (Annex E, pp. 19-22, Rec. on App.)

The foregoing reasons advanced  by the Commissioner of Immigration  justify the order  of forfeiture of the cash bond  posted by Lee Chiao.

The appellants claim that "the breach of any condition does not ipso facto forfeit the cash bond.  Or better still, the violation is not the operative act of  confiscation." Furthermore, he claims "that a declaration of confiscation is necessary to confiscate the cash bond."  Upon expiration  of the appellant Lee Suan Ay's authorized period of temporary stay in the Philippines  (25 March 1955), on 26 March 1955 the Commissioner of Immigration asked the bondsman to present her to the  Bureau of Immigration within 24 hours  from  receipt of  notice,  otherwise the bond would be confiscated (Annex 1).  For failure  of the bondsman to comply with the foregoing order, on 1 April 1955 the Commissioner of Immigration ordered the cash bond confiscated  (Annex E).  Therefore, there  was  an order  issued  by the Commissioner of Immigration confiscating or  forfeiting the cash bond.  Unlike in forfeiture of bail bonds in criminal proceedings, where the Court must  enter  an order  forfeiting the bail bond  and the bondsman must be given an opportunity  to present his principal or give  a  satisfactory reason for his  inability to  do  so, before final  judgment may  be  entered against the bondsman^[1] in forfeiture of bonds posted for  the temporary stay of an alien in the Philippines, no court proceeding  is necessary.  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 thereat declare it forfeited in  favor  of the Government.

The fact that Lee Suan Ay  was married to a Filipino citizen  does not  relieve the  bondsman from his liability on the  bond.  The marriage took place on 1 April 1955, and the violations  of  the  terms and conditions of the undertaking in the bond failure to depart from  the Philippines upon expiration of her authorized period of temporary stay in  the Philippines  (25 March 1955) and failure to report to  the  Commissioner of Immigration within 24 hours  from receipt of notice were  committed before the  marriage.  Moreover, the marriage of a Filipino  citizen to an  alien  does  not automatically confer Philippine citizenship  upon the  latter.  She must possess the qualifications required  by law to become  a Filipino citizen by naturalization.¹  There is no showing that the appellant Lee Suan Ay possesses all the qualifications and none  of the disqualifications provided for by law to become a  Filipino  citizen by  naturalization.

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

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 15, Commonwealth Act No. 473;  Ly Giok  Ha alias Wy Giok Ha vs. Galang, 54 Off. Gaz., 356.

¹ Section 15, Rule 110; U.S. vs. Bonoan, 22 Phil., 1.