October 1915 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > October 1915 Decisions >
G.R. No. 10828 October 28, 1915
CANG KAI GUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
032 Phil 102:
CANG KAI GUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
032 Phil 102:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 10828. October 28, 1915. ]
CANG KAI GUAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.
P. E. del Rosario for Appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Zaragosa for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION MINOR CHILD OF FORMER RESIDENT MERCHANT. — Held: Following the decisions in the cases of Tan Lin Jo v. Collector of Customs (32 Phil. Rep., 78); Ex parte Chan Fooi (217 Fed. Rep., 308); Yap Tian Un (Sun) v. Collector of Customs (32 Phil. Rep., 487); Du Eng Hoa v. Collector of Customs (32 Phil. Rep., 490), that such minors are not permitted to enter the territory of the Philippine Islands.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
The plaintiff and appellant arrived at the port of Cebu on the 19th of November, 1914, on the steamship Linan, and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands. An investigation was held by the board of special inquiry who denied the petition of the plaintiff.
An appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs, the Honorable B. Herstein, who, after considering the facts, affirmed the decision of the board of special inquiry and ordered the said Cang Kai Guan deported.
Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The cause was submitted to the Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, judge, who, after hearing the respective parties, denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. From that decision the plaintiff appeals to this court and makes several assignments of error.
From an examination of the record, the following facts appear to be undisputed: (first) that the plaintiff arrived at the port of Cebu on the 19th of November, 1914, on the steamship Linan; and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands; (second) that he was born in China and was a Chinaman; (third) that he was eighteen years of age; (fourth) that he had never been in the Philippine Islands; (fifth) that his father had died in China about six years before; that his father, for some years before his death, had been a merchant in the Philippine Islands; (sixth) that he was not possessed of the "section six certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library
The foregoing facts present the question whether or not the minor son of a Chinese merchant may enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate," after the death of his father. This question has been fully discussed in the case of Tan Lin Jo v. Collector of Customs (p. 78, ante), and there held that such minor can not enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate." And without repeating here the arguments in that case, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
An appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs, the Honorable B. Herstein, who, after considering the facts, affirmed the decision of the board of special inquiry and ordered the said Cang Kai Guan deported.
Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The cause was submitted to the Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, judge, who, after hearing the respective parties, denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. From that decision the plaintiff appeals to this court and makes several assignments of error.
From an examination of the record, the following facts appear to be undisputed: (first) that the plaintiff arrived at the port of Cebu on the 19th of November, 1914, on the steamship Linan; and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands; (second) that he was born in China and was a Chinaman; (third) that he was eighteen years of age; (fourth) that he had never been in the Philippine Islands; (fifth) that his father had died in China about six years before; that his father, for some years before his death, had been a merchant in the Philippine Islands; (sixth) that he was not possessed of the "section six certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library
The foregoing facts present the question whether or not the minor son of a Chinese merchant may enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate," after the death of his father. This question has been fully discussed in the case of Tan Lin Jo v. Collector of Customs (p. 78, ante), and there held that such minor can not enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate." And without repeating here the arguments in that case, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
