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
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 11384   March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 394

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11384. March 24, 1916. ]

    ANTONIO GUEVARA, 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; AUTHORITY OF BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY. — Held: Following the decisions of this court in the cases of Chieng Ah Sui v. Collector of Customs (22 Phil. Rep., 361; 239 U.S., 139); Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs (32 Phil. Rep., 24) and many others, that the board of special inquiry was fully authorized and empowered to inquire into the right of Chinese aliens to enter the territory of the United States.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF APPLICANT. — Held: That in a proceeding for deportation under the Chinese Exclusion Act, upon the issue as to whether the person seeking admission into territory of the United States is a person of the Chinese race, his appearance may be taken into consideration by the board of special inquiry. (U.S. Hing Chang, C. C. A., 19.)

    3. ID.; ID.; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS. — Held: That proceedings for the deportation of a Chinese person, under the deportation Act, are civil and not criminal actions, and the laws of evidence pertaining to civil actions govern.

    4. ID.; ID.; APPEALS TO COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. — Held: In deportation proceedings, it is sufficient if the Collector of Customs makes a review of the testimony presented to the board of special inquiry. He is not obliged to see or hear the witnesses. The law provides that an appeal from the decision of the board of special inquiry may be taken to the Collector of Customs might, if he deemed it advisable, hear the proof himself, yet it is sufficient if he makes an examination of the evidence adduced before the board of special inquiry. The law does not require him to see or hear the witnesses. His jurisdiction is an appellate jurisdiction.

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF AUTHORITY. — Held: That a mere refusal by the proper authorities to allow an alien to enter territory of the United States is not an abuse of authority. The courts can not review the weight or admissibility of the evidence on the question whether an alien was unlawfully in the country, and a decision to that effect by the department of customs, supported by any evidence, is conclusive. (Ex parte Chin Hin, 227 Fed. Rep., 131.)

    6. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF. — Held: That a Chinese person claiming to have been born in territory of the United States has the burden of proof to establish such fact, to the satisfaction of the department of customs. The burden is upon a Chinese person who claims to be a citizen of the United States, or of its territories, to show by affirmative proof, that he was born within such territory. The law permits the examining officers or board to examine the applicant for admission, and such other witnesses as may be presented, and to decide upon such testimony whether or not the applicants is entitled to enter. Authority to examine into the facts implies the discretion to decide, and, unless it is clearly proved that the discretion was abused, the courts will refuse to take jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the question of the right of an alien to enter the territory of the United States. (Tan Chin Hin v. Collector of Customs, 27 Phil. Rep., 521.)


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    It appears from the record that the plaintiff and appellant arrived at the port of Manila, together with twenty-five aliens, on the steamship Taisang, on or about the 16th of September, 1915, and requested permission to enter the Philippine Islands. The plaintiff was taken before a board of special inquiry and an examination was held concerning his right to enter the Philippine Islands. A number of witnesses were examined, at the close of which examination said board rendered a decision in which they found:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the detained (the plaintiff) is a full-blooded Chinese person, using this means to gain admission unlawfully into the Philippine Islands; that he is a subject of the Republic of China, coming to the Philippine Islands without the certificate required by law for the admission of Chinese. He is accordingly refused landing."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The plaintiff being informed of the conclusion of the board appealed to the Collector of Customs who, on the 29th of September, 1915, rendered a decision in which he said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After examining the evidence presented before the board of special inquiry and considering all of the facts and circumstances of the case, together with the arguments offered by counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, it is adjudged and decided by the undersigned that said appeal be overruled and denied; the decision of the board of special inquiry that this immigrant is a Chinese person and not entitled to admission into the Philippine Islands and is not the Antonio Guevara, a native of the Philippine Islands, whom he is represented to be, appearing to be proper and sustained by the evidence and all the facts and circumstances of the case, as shown by the record of the proceedings; the said Antonio Guevara is therefore refused landing, and it is hereby ordered that he be returned to his port of embarcation, on the next sailing of the vessel that brought him to the Philippine Islands or another vessel of the same line."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On the 2d of October, 1915, the plaintiff, through his attorney, presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, alleging that he was being illegally held and deprived of his liberty by the Collector of Customs at the city of Manila. Upon the presentation of said petition, an order to show cause was issued upon Respondent. An answer was duly presented by the respondent, through the Attorney-General, on the 4th of October, 1915.

    Upon the issue presented by the petition and answer, and the record made by the Collector of Customs, the question was submitted to the Honorable George R. Harvey, judge, who, in a very carefully prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that there had been no abuse of discretion on the part of the immigration authorities, denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs, with costs against the said petitioner.

    From that decision the petitioner appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error.

    "The lower court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. When it overruled appellant’s motion to strike from the files the return of the respondent to the order to show cause why the writ should not issue.

    "2. When it found that the board which heard the matter at the custom house was a legal board and lawfully qualified to hear and determine the right of this appellant to enter the Philippine Islands.

    "3. When it found that there was any legal evidence upon which the conclusions of the board could be lawfully based.

    "4. When it did not find that board and the Insular Collector of Customs had abused the discretion, power, and authority in them reposed when they refused this appellant a landing in the Philippine Islands.

    "5. When it did not find that the decision of the board and of the Insular Collector of Customs, on appeal therefrom, were based upon an erroneous interpretation of the law and, therefore, null and void.

    "6. When it did not examine the record and the testimony taken at the customhouse and tender a decision thereon instead of contenting itself with a finding that there was no abuse of authority on the part of the immigration authorities.

    "7. When it did not find that the Insular Collector of Customs and the immigration authorities had abused the discretion, power, and authority in them reposed, when the said Insular Collector of Customs rendered his decision on appeal herein without having seen all of the testimony introduced before the board of special inquiry, and upon which the said board based its decision.

    "8. When it refused to issue the writ.

    "9. When it found Antonio Guevara not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands.

    "10. When it remanded Antonio Guevara to the Insular Collector of Customs for deportation."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With reference to the first and second assignments of error, the question presented by them have been so frequent decided by this court against the contention of the appellant that we deem it unnecessary to discuss them again. (Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Rep., 24 and cases cited; Chieng Ah Sui v. Collector of Customs, 22 Phil. Rep., 361; [239 U.S., 139] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, November 29, 1915.)

    With reference to the third assignment of error it may be said that, considering the conflicting character of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause together with the personal appearance of the plaintiff, we are of the opinion that the board had sufficient evidence before it to justify its conclusion. In a proceeding for deportation under the Chinese Exclusion Act, upon the issue as to whether the person seeking admission into territory of the United States is a person of the Chinese race, his appearance may be taken into consideration by the commissioner or judge, and persons who state that, from practical experience and knowledge of racial characteristics and peculiarities, they are able to identify Chinese persons are competent witnesses. (U.S. v. Hing Chang, C. C. A., 19.) Proceedings for the deportation of a Chinese person, under the Deportation Act, are Civil and not criminal actions, and the laws of evidence pertaining to civil actions govern.

    The plaintiff claimed that he was the son of a Filipina woman and a Chinese father. The plaintiff swore that he was born in the Philippine Islands in the municipality of Malabon (See Exhibit A, page 21.) The board of special inquiry expressly found that the plaintiff had the appearance of being a full-blood Chinese person.

    What has been said with reference to the third assignment of error is sufficient to show, in view of the numerous decision not only of this court but of the Federal Courts of the United States, that there exists no reason for modifying the decision of the lower court upon the grounds assigned in the fourth and fifth assignments of error.

    With reference to the sixth assignment of error, the court was justified in denying the writ of habeas corpus until it had been shown positively that the department of customs had abused its authority.

    With reference to the seventh assignment of error, it may be said that there is no law requiring the proof to be adduced before the Collector of Customs. It is the duty of the board of special inquiry to make an investigation and to hear whatever proof the parties desire to present. It is sufficient if the Collector of Customs makes a review of the testimony presented to the board of special inquiry. He is not obliged to see or hear the witnesses. The law provides that an appeal from the decision of the board of special inquiry may be taken to the Collector of Customs. While, no doubt, the Collector of Customs might, if he deemed it advisable, hear the proof himself, yet it is sufficient if he makes an examination of the evidence adduced before the board of special inquiry. The law does not require him to see or hear the witnesses. His jurisdiction is an appellate jurisdiction.

    The appellant seems to assume that, because he would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence adduced, therefore the Collector of Customs committed an error in not admitting him into the territory of the Philippine Islands. A mere refusal on the part of the Collector of Customs to believe even the sworn statements of witnesses, in Chinese exclusion cases, is no error. Taking into consideration the conflict between the declarations of the various witnesses, especially between the declarations of the plaintiff and his alleged mother, it is our opinion that the Collector of Customs in this case especially was justified in not believing the testimony of the appellant or that of his mother. A mere refusal by the proper authorities to allow an alien to enter territory of the United States is not an abuse of authority. The courts can not review the weight or admissibility of the evidence on the question whether an alien was unlawfully in the country, and a decision to that effect by the department of customs, supported by any evidence, is conclusive. (Ex parte Chin Hin, 227 Fed. Rep., 131.) A Chinese person claiming to have been born within the territory of the United States has the burden of proof to establish such fact to the satisfaction of the department of customs. The burden is upon a Chinese person who claims to be a citizen of the United States, or of its territories, to show, by affirmative proof, that he was born within said territory. (U.S. v. Hom Lim, 223 Fed. Rep., 520; Fong Ping Ngar v. U.S., 223 Fed. Rep., 523.) The law permits the examining officers or board to examine the applicant for admission, and such other witnesses as may be presented, and to decide upon such testimony whether or not the applicant is entitled to enter. Authority to examination into the facts implies the discretion to decide and, unless it is clearly proved that the discretion was abused, the courts will refuse to take jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the question of the right of an alien to enter the territory of the United States. (Tan Chin Hin v. Collector of Customs, 27 Phil. Rep., 521.)

    The Honorable George R. Harvey, judge, in a very carefully prepared opinion, after a careful examination of the evidence adduced before the Collector of Customs, reached the conclusion that the department of customs had not abused the discretion and power vested in it by the law, and denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the Collector of Customs for deportation.

    After a careful examination of the record brought to this court, we find no reason for changing or modifying the sentence of the lower court. The same is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 11384   March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 394




    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