Petitioners Chiong Tiao Bing  and Chiong Tiao  Siong, brothers  of  Chinese nationality,  were permanent residents of the Philippines, with their  parents, prior to 1940. On  that  year, petitioners, being  then  age 7 and 2 respectively, were sent by their parents to  China for a temporary sojourn there, and were issued Special Return  Certificates Nos.  43689 and 43690 upon  departure.   Apparently  because of the  confusion of the last Pacific war, petitioners were unable  to  return  before the expiry  of their return certificates, and remained in China.  After the war, efforts were exerted to secure their  re-entry; but before the  negotiation could be concluded, the onrush of the Communist forced petitioner to quit China.  They then applied  and secured temporary visitor visas for the Philippines, and on the strength  thereof were admitted into the country, on May  25,  1949,  and rejoined  their parents.  Their temporary visitor visas having been expired on May 25, 1950, warrants for  their arrest were issued and deportation proceedings instituted.  The Board of  Immigration Commissioners  ordered them deported, and they applied  to  the Court of First Instance of Manila to quash the order and stay its execution, en the  basis that as of June 25, 1954, the First Deputy  Commissioner of  Immigration had "corrected"  their status from "temporary visitors" to "returning residents" and as such they had a right to permanent stay and were no longer subject to deportation.   The Government answered that on August 3,  1955,  the Commissioner of Immigration had set aside the order of the First Deputy, and that to change their status petitioners should first depart from  the Philippines as required by the immigration law and regulations, specially  Commonwealth Act 613, section 9, as amended by Republic Act 503.

The Court of First Instance held that the  provision of the  Bulletin No. 1  concerning the Philippine  Immigration Act (Commonwealth Act 613) to the effect that  

"To obtain  permanent  admission, a non-immigrant  alien must depart voluntarily to  some foreign country (anyone in which he can secure admission), and procure from the appropriate consul  the proper visa and thereafter undergo examination by officers  of this Bureau at a  Philippine port of entry for determination of his  admissibility in accordance  with the requirements of the Immigration Law."

does  not apply to  the petitioners herein  in   view of the fact that their status had  not been  "changed" but merely "corrected" to their proper status  of returning residents under the law,  section (d), Republic Act 503.  The Court below, therefore, set aside the order of August 3, 1953, and  permanently enjoined the deportation.

The Commissioner of Immigration has appealed to this Court, invoking  our ruling in Ong See Lun vs. Board of' Immigration  Commissioners,  95  Phil., 785, wherein the Court held: 

"The requirement that  the alien should first abandon  the Islands before seeking permanent admission therein is justified by the consideration that  in accepting the status  of a  temporary visitor the alien in effect accepts that he  is not entitled to permanent  admission; and to allow him to change his status without first departing (as he obligated himself to do) would be encouraging the entry of aliens On  false  pretenses.  Considerations  of convenience or efficiency must yield to the definite and express policy of the Republic in its  dealings with aliens; and it is well to note that the procedure outlined in Immigration Bulletin No. 1, was sanctioned and reiterated in practically the same  terms by Republic Act No. 503, Section 3.  An alien's presence and stay in this  country being a matter of privilege, he must be held to a strict observance of the laws concerning his  admission."

It will be noted  in the preceding  excerpt that the ruling invoked by the Immigration Commissioner is essentially one based on fraud  and estoppel.  It is clear that if an alien gains admission  to the Islands on the strength of a deliberate and voluntary representation that he will enter only  for a limited time, and thereby  secures the benefit of a temporary  visa, the law will  not allow ,him subsequently to go back on his representation and stay permanently, without first departing from the Philippines as he  had  promised.  No  officer  can relieve  him  of the departure requirements of  section 9 of  the  Immigration Act, under the guise of "change"  or "correction",  for the law  makes  no distinctions,  and no officer is above the law.  Any other ruling would, as  stated in our previous decision, encourage aliens  to enter the  Islands on  false pretenses; every alien, so permitted to enter for a limited time, might then  claim a right to  permanent admission, however flimsy such claim should be, and thereby compel our government to spend time, money and effort to examining and verifying whether or not every such alien really has a right to take up permanent residence here.   In the meanwhile,  the alien would be able to prolong his stay and evade his return to the port whence he came, contrary to what he promised to do when he entered.   The damages inherent in  such ruling are self-evident.

But the circumstances of  petitioners' entry negates any misrepresentation or estoppel.  The state  does not  deny that they originally had the right to return as permanent residents; that they had been exercising  efforts  to  have that right recognized since the termination of the Pacific war, and  that their  acceptance of the temporary  visitor's visa was due to their effort to escape from the Communist forces that  shortly  afterwards  took over their place of residence  in China.  The Philippine Government  was not therefore  mislead as to the real  claims of petitioners, that they were returning residents; and hence, taking into account that petitioners  were themselves  minors when they returned,  we  believe the  Ong See  Lun  ruling does not apply to their case.  In effect, the issuance of a temporary visa in their favor appears as  an assent on the part of the Philippine authorities to their entry pending final decision  on their right to return.  The decision in  their favor was made in the order of  Deputy Commissioner De la Rosa on June 25, 1954 (Exhibit A), which could not be validly  revoked without notice to and due hearing of petitioners herein.

It is true that petitioners appear to have taken steps to finally determine their  status only after their  deportation was ordered Considering their minority, however, we do not believe that the delay should be rigorously held against them.

The decision appealed from  is  affirmed.   No  costs.

Paras,  C. J., Montemayor, Bautista  Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Endencia,  and Felix, JJ., concur.