Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1916 > August 1916 Decisions > G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

034 Phil 832:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 11427. August 23, 1916. ]

VY LIONG LIN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondents-appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellant.

Williams, Ferrier & SyCip for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION; RIGHT TO ENTER WITHOUT CERTIFICATE. — But few rules relating to the right of Chinese aliens to enter territory of the United States are better settled and supported by a larger number of decisions, not only by the department of customs, but by the courts themselves, than the one which provides that no Chinese alien, be he a merchant, teacher, student, or tourist, has a right to enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate." The only exception to that rule is in the case of the wife or minor children of a resident Chinese in territory of the United States.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The only question presented by this appeal is whether or not adult Chinese aliens who have never been in territory of the United States may enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the 19th of November, 1915, two Chinamen, Soon Shing and Who Chan Ton, arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Tenyo Maru, from Japan , and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands. Their right to enter was denied. They were taken before a board of special inquiry, which board, after hearing their respective declarations, found that they were Chinese persons, subjects of the Republic of China, coming to the Philippine Islands from Japan; that they did not present the "section six certification" as is required by law for the admission of Chinese aliens into territory of the United States. They were each informed of the decision of the board of special inquiry and each appealed to the Collector of Customs who affirmed the decision of the board of special inquiry on the 23d of November, 1915.

On the same day (the 23d of November, 1915), a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila by the plaintiff herein. Said petition was duly answered by the Attorney-General. Upon a consideration of the petition, the answer or return of the Attorney-General, and the record made by the department of customs, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge, reached the conclusion that the said two Chinamen should be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate." From that judgment the Attorney-General appealed to this court.

In this court the Attorney-General makes several assignments of error, the most important of which and the one upon which the appeal in the present case must be decided is that the lower court committed an error in finding that the "section six certificate" six certificate" is not necessary for the admission of Chinese persons of the privileged class.

From the record it appears that the two said Chinamen were subjects of China; that by reason of some difficulty with the Chinese Government they escaped from China to Japan and from there came to Manila; that they were newspaper men; that they could not return to China because of some fear which they entertained concerning the action which their own Government might take against them. The lower court believed that they belonged to the "privileged class," that it was impossible for them to obtain said certificate from their own Government, because they were unable to return to their own country for that purpose. The theory of the lower court was based upon the fact that the two Chinamen belonged to a class who might, under other conditions, have obtained the "section six certificate" from the proper authorities of the Chinese Government.

But few questions relating to the right of Chinese aliens to enter territory of the United States are better and supported by a larger number of decisions, not only by department of customs but by the courts themselves, than the one which provides that no alien, be he merchant, teacher, student, or tourist, has a right top enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate." The only exception to that rule is the case of a wife or the minor children of a resident Chinese in territory of the United States.

While the other assignments of error presented by the Attorney-General present questions of great interest, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them at this time for the reason that the assignment which we have discussed is sufficient to solve the question before us, to wit, whether or not the two Chinamen have a right to enter the Philippine Islands without the "section six certificate." The other assignments of error relate to the procedure. They will be discussed when their discussion is important for the decision of a case in which they may be presented.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby revoked, and that it is hereby ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs and appellees be returned to the Collector of Customs to the end that the order of deportation heretofore dictated by him may be carried into effect, and without any finding as to costs it is so ordered.

Torres, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.




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






August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880