ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
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

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 865

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11267. August 31, 1916. ]

    SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN, Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondents-appellee.

    Beaumont & Tenney for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. Aliens; CHINESE EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION; ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS; APPEALS TO COLLECTOR. — Held: Following the decisions in the cases of Que Quay v. Collector of Customs (33 Phil. Rep., 128); Go Paw v. Collector of Customs (33 Phil. Rep., 278); Valdezco Sy Chiok v. Collector of Customs (33 Phil. Rep., 406); Co Pian v. Collector of Customs (34 Phil. Rep., 310); Obra v. Collector of Customs (R. G. No. 11087, decided January 8, 1916, not published), that it is not necessary for the Collector of Customs, on an appeal from the decision of the board of special inquiry, to hear and see the witnesses, even though the board found from a personal examination that the alien belonged to the class of aliens who are not permitted to enter territory of the United States without the "Section six certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID.; PERSONAL EXAMINATION OF APPLICANTS. — Held: Following the decision in the cases of Leong Guen v. Collector of Customs (31 Phil. Rep., 417); and Go Paw v. Collector of Customs (33 Phil. Rep., 278), that alien Chinese seeking admission into territory of the United States are themselves exhibits; that the board of special inquiry has a right to examine and to determine form their personal appearance whether they are Chinamen or not.

    3. ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY OF BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY. — Held: Following the decisions in the cases of Chieng Ah Sui v. Collector v. Collector of Customs (32 Phil. Rep., 32); Que Quay v. Collector of Customs (33 Phil. Rep., 128); that the board of special inquiry is, under the law, vested with full authority, in the first instance, to inquire into the right of Chinese aliens to enter territory of the United States.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the Insular Collector of Customs abused his power, discretion, and authority in refusing the appellants the right to enter the Philippine Islands.

    The record shows that the appellants arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Linan on the 26th of April, 1915, and requested permission to enter the Philippine Islands. They alleged that they were citizens of the Philippine Islands; that their mother was a Filipina and that their father was a Chinaman. They admitted that they had been born in China and had been in the Philippine Islands before. Several witnesses appeared in their behalf. Their alleged mother appeared and swore that had gone to China about twenty-eight or thirty years ago and had lived there with a Chinaman by the name of See Lo; that the two appellants were her children and that See Lo was their father.

    An examination of the testimony shows some very important conflicts; for example, each of the appellants swear that they lived in their own house and that said house had three rooms; while the mother testified that they lived in a rented house with two rooms. See Chiat swore that he was twenty-two years of age. See Huan that he was twenty-four years of age. It does not seem probable, if the appellants are the persons whom they claim to be, that they could have lived there with their mother, as they allege, during their entire life, without knowing the number of rooms which the house contained in which they lived. It does not seem probable either that the mother could have been mistaken upon that question, providing they had lived together as they allege. That conflict in this testimony, together with others, evidently caused the board of special inquiry in its decision said: "The board does not believe their testimony." The board believed that they were full-blooded Chinamen and laborers, coming to the Philippine Islands without the required certificates, and refused them the right to land.

    From that decision an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs who found that the appellants were not citizens of the Philippine Islands, but were Chinese persons not entitled by law to admission into the Philippine Islands.

    Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of Firs Instance of the City of Manila, and after hearing the respective parties the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge, in a carefully prepared opinion reached the conclusion that the Collector of Customs had not abused the power or discretion which the law conferred upon him and denied the writ of habeas corpus, and ordered the appellants returned to the custody of the Collector of Customs for deportation.

    From that judgment the appellants appealed to this court and made the following assignments or error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The court erred in failing to find that the failure of the Collector on appeal to see and weigh the evidence on which the excluding decision of the board of special inquiry was based, constituted abuse of his power and discretion and deprived the petitioners of their right to a full and fair hearing of their claim of right to enter the Philippine Islands.

    "2. The court erred in finding that there was anything improbable or suspicious in the story that a woman who was born in the Philippine Islands, lived therein for 20 years, speaking the Tagalog language, then removed to China, where she lived for 30 years speaking Chinese, then returned and on April 26 entering into her associations among people talking Tagalog, was able by July 14th next following such return, to recall her knowledge of, and be able correctly to testify in, her native language.

    "3. The court erred in failing to find specifically as a fact that the petitioners have the appearance of mestizos and do not have the appearance of persons of the Chinese race.

    "4. The court erred in failing to pass upon the question of whether as a matter of fact the petitioners or either of them do or not resemble the person claiming to be their mother.

    "5. That said board of special inquiry was not duly constituted and had no jurisdiction to exclude from the Philippine Islands these petitioners in decision based wholly upon the provisions of the Chinese exclusion laws (Act of April 29th, 1902). Nor had the Collector jurisdiction to review said decision on appeal.

    "6. The court erred in refusing to set the petitioners at liberty and in remanding them to the custody of the Collector of Customs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With reference to the first assignment of error above noted, we have held in several cases that it was not necessary of for the Collector of Customs, in an appeal from a decision of the board of special inquiry, to see and hear the witness, even though the board found from a personal examination of the alien that he belonged to the class of aliens who were not permitted to enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate." (Que Quay v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 278; Valdezco Sy Chiok v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 406; See also Co Pian v. Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 11087 [decided Jan. 8, 1916, not published. ])

    The rule is not only well established here in this jurisdiction, but also in the United State, in cases like the present, where a board of special inquiry refuses a Chinaman the right to enter territory of the United States, even on the personal appearance, racial characteristics, language, dress, and manner of said alien, it is not necessary for the Collector of Customs, in his review of the proceedings of said board on appeal, to have before him the person of the alien nor to hear the witnesses again who testified before said board of special inquiry. The Collector of Customs is authorized to review the evidence and to pass upon its sufficiency without again hearing or seeing the witnesses.

    With reference to the second assignment of error above-noted, an examination of the record shows that the alleged mother of the appellants, in her examination before the board of special inquiry, had some difficulty in understanding Tangelo. She stated, "I forgot Tangelo; I was in China so long." In the Court of First Instance according to the finding of Judge Del Rosario, she spoke Tangelo very fluently and perfectly. Taking into consideration her own statement before the board of special inquiry with reference to her ability to speak Tangelo, in relation with the fluent manner in which she spoke it before the Court of First Instance, Judge Del Rosario did not believe that she had been in China for a period of 30 years. Judge Del Rosario believed that during a period of 30 years. without having an opportunity to speak her native tongue, she would have forgotten it more or less. That conclusion of the judge was in accordance with her own conclusion before the board of special inquiry. Evidently Judge Del Rosario referred to that fact. she referred to other facts, simply for the purpose of indicating the reason why he did not believe her statements. Judge Del Rosario believed that she had only gone to China for the purpose of learning to speak Chinese, in order that she might falsely represent that she was the mother of the appellants. It was simply Judge Del Rosario’s appreciation of the facts which influenced his conclusion.

    The third and fourth assignments of error may discussed together. The board of special inquiry found ad a fact that the plaintiffs did not resemble, in their facial appearance, their alleged mother; that they were not Filipino mestizos, gut that they were full-blooded Chinamen. Alien Chinese seeking admission into territory of the United States are themselves exhibits. The board of special inquiry has a right to examine them and to determine from their personal appearance whether they are Chinamen or not. (Leong Guen v. Collector of Customs, 31 Phil. Rep., 417; Go Paw v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 278.)

    With reference to the fifth assignment of error, that question has been decided against the contention of the appellants in to many cases that we will not now discuss it again. (Chieng Ah Sui v. Collector of Customs, 22 Phil. Rep., 361; 239 U. S., 139; Tin Lio v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Rep., 32; Que Quay v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 128.)

    In the case of ex parte Momo Tomimatsu (232 Fed. Rep., 376), it was held that a clerk in the immigration service may serve on the board of special inquiry.

    For all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion and so hold that there was no abuse of authority on the part of the department of customs. The decision of the Court of first Instance is therefore hereby affirmed with costs and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the appellants be returned to the Collector of Customs, in order that the judgment heretofore dictated by him may be enforced. So ordered.

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

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I am in entire accord with this decision. I think, however, that Courts of First Instance should not enter upon the facts of a given case without it being first established, to their satisfaction, that the board of special inquiry abused its authority or violated the law in such a manner as to permit a review.

    G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 865


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED