Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > October 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 10788 October 28, 1915

VICENTE GÑILO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

032 Phil 100:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 10788. October 28, 1915. ]

VICENTE GÑILO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

Williams, Ferrier & Sycip for Appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION; DISCRETION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. — In the proceedings upon the application of aliens to enter territory of the United States, if there is some proof to support the conclusions of the officers of that department, their conclusions should be afflrmed. The mere fact that the Collector of Customs refused to believe the witnesses presented is not of itself an abuse of authority or discretion.

2. ID.; ID.; MINORS BORN WITHIN TERRITORY OF UNITED STATES; BURDEN OF PROOF. — A Chinese person, claiming to have been born within territory of the United States, has the burden to establish such fact by afflrmative proof. A, Chinese alien cannot avoid that burden by merely stating to the officers of the department of customs, even though under oath, that he was born in territory of the United States. The burden is upon the Chinese person who claims to be a citizen of the United States to sustain that fact.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The plaintiff and appellant was charged with being a Chinese laborer in the Philippine Islands, without the required certificate. He was duly arrested and taken before the administrative officers of the department of customs, and was there found, first, by the board of special inquiry, and second, by an appeal to the Collector of Customs, to be in the Philippine Islands unlawfully and in violation of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907, and of the Chinese Exclusion Laws. It was found that he had landed in the Philippine Islands, without being duly authorized by law, or by any immigration inspector of the Bureau of Customs, as provided for by said Act of Congress and that he was remaining in the Philippine Islands contrary to law, and was ordered deported.

Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. Answer was duly made to the petition for said writ and the cause was brought on for hearing before the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario who, after hearing the respective parties, reached the conclusion that there had been no abuse of authority on the part of the department of customs, and denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. From that decision, the plaintiff appealed to this court and made several assignments of error.

A number of the assignments of error have been heretofore decided by this court, in numerous cases. (Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs, p. 24, ante; Tan Lin Jo v. Collector of Customs, p. 78, ante. There remains, however, the question whether or not the department of customs, in denying the plaintiff and appellant the right to enter the Philippine Islands, abused the power and discretion vested in it. In the first place there is some proof to support the findings made by said department. The mere fact that the Collector of Customs refused to believe the witnesses presented by the appellant is not of itself an abuse of authority or discretion.

The plaintiff claims to have been born in the Philippine Islands. The Collector of Customs found that he was a Chinaman; that he was not born in the Philippine Islands. A Chinese person claiming to have been born in territory of the United States has the burden of proof to establish such fact, by affirmative proof. (U. S. v. Hom Lim, 223 Fed Rep., 520; Moy Suey v. U. S., 147 Fed. Rep., 697; Gee Cue Beng v. U. S., 184 Fed. Rep., 383; 106 District Court of Appeals, 493.) Neither can a Chinese alien avoid that burden by merely stating to the officers of the department of customs, even under oath, that he was born in the territory of the United States. (U. S. v. Hom Lim, supra.) The burden is upon the Chinese person ,who claims to be a citizen of the United States to sustain that fact by affirmative proof. (Tong Ting Ngar v. U. S., 223 Fed. Rep., 523; Chin Bak Kan v. U. S., 186 U. S., 193; Tom Hong v. U. S., 193 U. S., 517.)

The plaintiff was denied the right to remain in the Philippine Islands, first, by the department of customs, and second, by the Court of First Installce of the city of Manila.

After a careful examination of the record brought to this court, we find no reason for reversing the conclusions of the Collector of Customs. The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9166 October 1, 1915

    CHAN YICK SAM v. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 10172 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CASIANO BANZUELA, ET AL

    031 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 10470 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. FILEMON BAYUTAS

    031 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 8936 October 2, 1915

    CONSUELO LEGARDA v. N. M. SALEEBY

    031 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 10340 October 2, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN ASUNCION

    031 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9980 October 6, 1915

    GREGORIO ESCARIO v. ANTERO REGIS, ET AL

    031 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 9694 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO E. GABRIEL

    031 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 10698 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. P. D. GARCES

    031 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 9430 October 11, 1915

    SY YOC v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 9615 October 14, 1915

    VICENTE GOLINGKO v. BRUNO MONJARDIN

    031 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 8373 October 15, 1915

    KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 9807 October 15, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SO HAO KA

    031 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. 10053 & 10055 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL, ET AL.

    031 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 10628 October 19, 1915

    JOHN R. SCHULTZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    032 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10737 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO ARANIL

    032 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 9982 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA GANZON v. MARIA LIMSON

    032 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 10266 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA VALENZUELA v. PEDRO UNSON

    032 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 10503 October 20, 1915

    IRINEO DEL ROSARIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 10576 October 20, 1915

    LEE JUA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 10733 October 20, 1915

    TIN LIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10858 October 20, 1915

    PEDRO M. DUARTE v. WALTER H. DADE

    032 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 9692 October 21, 1915

    PEDRO TIAMSON v. MAGNO TIAMSON

    032 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 9969 October 26, 1915

    MODESTA BELTRAN v. FELICIANA DORIANO

    032 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 9921 October 26, 1915

    JOSE VELASCO v. ROSENBERG’S, INC.

    032 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 10386 October 26, 1915

    TE CHIN BOO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 10699 October 26, 1915

    TAN LIN JO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 10815 October 26, 1915

    AMADO SING JING TALENTO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 10076 October 28, 1915

    CITY OF MANILA v. FERNANDA FELISA COMALES, ET AL.

    032 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 10788 October 28, 1915

    VICENTE GÑILO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10828 October 28, 1915

    CANG KAI GUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 10790 October 29, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SIMON TAN CORTESO

    032 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 10102 October 30, 1915

    C. F. ARBENZ v. OTTO GMUR

    032 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 10673 October 30, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME CH. VELOSO

    032 Phil 126