4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly case Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco,[18] "[t]he mere fact that a citizen or subject is out of the territory of his country does not relieve him from that allegiance which he owes to his government, and his government may, under certain conditions, properly and legally request his return."[19] Alleged Lack of Notice We likewise reject petitioner's reliance on the ruling of the trial court that "[w]hile it may be true that there is a Summary Deportation Order against the petitioner allegedly for being [an] undocumented alien, having used a passport which had already been cancelled, there is no showing that he was informed about it."[20] Other than petitioner's bare allegations, however, we find no sufficient basis to overturn the presumption that the Bureau of Immigration conducted its proceedings in accordance with law.[21] In any event, when petitioner filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus before the RTC, he was afforded ample opportunity to air his side and to assail the legal and factual bases of the Board of Commissioners' Summary Deportation Order. Moreover, he could have raised the same points in the proceedings before the CA and even before this Court. Indeed, an alien has the burden of proof to show that he entered the Philippines lawfully.[22] Petitioner has not discharged this burden. He has not controverted -- either before the RTC, the CA or this Court - the Board of Commissioners' ruling that he was in fact Chen Kuan-Yuan, who was "sentenced to 8 years and 2 months imprisonment for drug trafficking and violation of controlling guns, ammunition and knives law" and was holding a passport cancelled by the Republic of China in 1995. Just as unmeritorious is petitioner's contention that "at the time of his detention, there was no deportation charge filed against him."[23] Assuming arguendo that his arrest was illegal, supervening events bar his subsequent release.[24] In this case, when the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed, petitioner had already been charged and ordered deported by the Board of Commissioners. In sum, we hold that petitioner's confinement was not illegal; hence, there is no justification for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, he has not shown any cogent reason to warrant the nullification of the Board of Commissioners' Summary Deportation Order. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51129 8/10