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
 

   
February-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10173 February 1, 1916 - MARIANO VELASCO & Co. v. GOCHUICO CO.

    033 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 10935 February 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ

    033 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 9184 February 2, 1916 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    033 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 10129 February 2, 1916 - CLARA TAMBUNTING v. EDILBERTO SANTOS

    033 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 10744 February 2, 1916 - ANTONIO RAYMUNDO v. AMBROSIO CARPIO

    033 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 10841 February 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    033 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 11086 February 2, 1916 - MARTINIANO VALDEZCO SY CHIOK v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 11399 February 2, 1916 - REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA v. PANFILO VILLAMAR

    033 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 10121 February 3, 1916 - MAURICIA SOTO v. DOMINGA ONG

    033 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 10107 February 4, 1916 - CLARA CEREZO v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY

    033 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 8769 February 5, 1916 - SMITH, BELL & CO. v. MARIANO MARONILLA

    041 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 9802 February 5, 1916 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    041 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 10345 February 5, 1916 - KUENZLE & STREIFF (LTD.) v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    041 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 10078 February 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO DACAIMAT

    033 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 9038 February 7, 1916 - PEDRO MAGAYANO v. TOMAS GAPUZAN

    033 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 10280 February 7, 1916 - ENGRACIO CORONEL v. CENON ONA

    033 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8166 February 8, 1916 - JORGE DOMALAGAN v. CARLOS BOLIFER

    033 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 10548 February 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNO DE IRO

    033 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10104 February 10, 1916 - ROMANA CORTES v. FLORENCIO G. OLIVA

    033 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 10251 February 10, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 10619 February 10, 1916 - COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9596 February 11, 1916 - MARCOS MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO DE LEON

    033 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 11048 February 11, 1916 - LIM PUE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 11081 February 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MOHAMAD

    033 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 9977 February 12, 1916 - DOROTEO KARAGDAG v. FILOMENA BARADO

    033 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 11065 February 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE K. SANTOS

    033 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9966 February 14, 1916 - TRINIDAD DE AYALA v. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO

    033 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 10427 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY

    033 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10666 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. QUE SIANG

    033 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10951 February 14, 1916 - K.S. YOUNG v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    033 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 8914 February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA

    033 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 9277 February 15, 1916 - ANDRES CALON y MARTIN v. BALBINO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 9822 February 15, 1916 - BENIGNO SOLIS v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    033 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10722 February 18, 1916 - DOLORES A IGNACIO v. FELISA MARTINEZ

    033 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 10516 February 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SOLAÑA

    033 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 10323 February 21, 1916 - PETRA DE CASTRO v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BOCAUE

    033 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 9204 February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL

    033 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 10531 February 25, 1916 - JULIANA MELIZA v. PABLO ARANETA

    033 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 10672 October 26, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ

    033 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

    034 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10934 February 26, 1916 - PP. AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. GALO LICHAUCO ET AL.

    034 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 10675 February 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YAP TIAN JONG

    034 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9665 February 29, 1916 - IN RE: AMBROSIO RABALO v. GABINA RABALO

    034 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 10244 February 29, 1916 - SANTIAGO CRUZADO v. ESTEFANIA BUSTOS

    034 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 11006 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO BALBIN

    034 Phil 38

  • G.R. Nos. 11055 & 11056 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    034 Phil 44

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 10427   February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY<br /><br />033 Phil 545

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10427. February 14, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOY CHUY, Defendant-Appellant.

    Gregorio Araneta, for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION LAWS; REPEAL OF ACT NO. 317. — Act No. 317 of the Philippine commission regulating the return and reentry of Chinese persons who have left or should leave Philippine Islands before or after the 13th of August, 1908, was repealed by the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, and Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, at least in so far as they are inconsistent with each other.


    D E C I S I O N


    CARSON, J. :


    This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Sulu declaring him to be a Chinese laborer found within the Philippine Islands contrary to the provisions of Act No. 702 and ordering him deported to China.

    The undisputed facts of this case is as follows: The defendant is a Chinese laborer and was found in the Philippine Islands on or about the 7th day of July 1914, in the municipality of Jolo, not having in his possession the certificate of residence required by Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, passed pursuant to the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, regulating the residence of Chinese laborers in the Philippine Islands and at that time obtained the certificate of residence required by Act No. 702; that later he went to China and had issued in his favor a laborer’s return certificate; and that as he did not return to the port at which the return certificate was issued within the time prescribed by Act No. 702 his certificate or residence was canceled. The record does not show when or how the defendant entered the Philippine Islands upon his return from China, but the evidence is conclusive and uncontroverted that he remained away beyond the time limit prescribed by law and that he surreptitiously entered the Islands without the knowledge of customs and immigration officials, presumably by the way of Borneo. Upon the finding of facts the lower court ordered the defendant deported to the port of Hongkong, China.

    Counsel for the appellant contends that the undisputed facts disclose a violation of Act No. 702 but of Act No. 317 of the Philippine Commission. In reply to his contention the Attorney-General well says that Act No. 317 is not applicable to the facts developed by the record in this case, it having been suspended by the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, and by the provisions of Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission. The position of the Attorney-General is undoubtedly correct. The Act of Congress of April 29, 1902 and Act 702 of the Philippine Commission cover in a very much more detailed and comprehensive manner the very subject matter of Act 317, viz: the reentry of Chinese persons into the Philippine Islands. Act No. 317 relates only to the regulation of the return and reentry of Chinese persons who had left or should leave the Philippine Islands before or after the 13th day of August, 1908, while Act No. 702 was an Act to regulate the registration of Chinese persons in the Philippine Archipelago, and to carry into effect and enforce the provisions of section 4 of the Act of Congress approved April 29, 1902, entitled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "An act to prohibit the coming into and to regulate the residence within the United States, its territories, and all territory under its jurisdiction and the District if Columbia, of Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The subject-matter of Act No. 317 is fully covered by the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, and Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, and Act No. 317 must be held to have been repealed by these later Acts, at least in so far as they are inconsistent with each other and in so far as the former Act, if it were still in force, could be held to be applicable to the facts in the case at bar.

    In appearing that the defendant is a Chinese person, and he having failed to show that he has any lawful right to remain in the Philippine Islands, the order of the lower court deporting him should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance de officio. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10427   February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY<br /><br />033 Phil 545


    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