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. 10729  March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 153

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10729. March 7, 1916. ]

    UY PO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Respondent-Appellee.

    Williams, Ferrier & SyCip for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avancena for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION; PROCEEDINGS AND REVIEW; ERRORS REPEATEDLY ASSIGNED. — Held: That the court will not discuss errors assigned which have been repeatedly passed upon, unless some new condition or reason is given.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DECISIONS OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS. — Held: That if the customs department has some evidence upon which to base its conclusions, its orders will not be changed or modified, upon the ground that it abused its authority.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CHUA YU SENG VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. — Held: That whatever was said in the decision of this court in the case of Chua Yu Seng v. Collector of Customs (R.G. No. 9896, not published), relating to the right of Chinese children not born in the Philippine Islands to enter the Philippine Islands within a reasonable time after reaching their majority, is purely obiter dicta. It was not necessary to the decision in that case.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF MINOR TO ENTER. — Held: That while the legitimate children of citizens of the United States and of the Philippine Islands, when born abroad, have a reasonable time within which to elect or reject the citizenship of their parents, after becoming of age, no right of election of any kind has been extended to any children of Chinese who have never become citizens of the United States or the Philippine Islands. The law specifically limits the right of children of resident Chinese to enter territory of the United States up to the date of their becoming age. The right of election does not extend beyond that period.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    It appears from the record that on or about the 6th day of July, 1914, the plaintiff and appellant arrived at the port of Manila, on the steamship Taisang, and applied for permission to enter the Philippine Islands. A memorandum made by the board of special inquiry stated that the plaintiff was 19 years of age. During the investigation, however, he swore that he was 21 years of age; that he came from Amoy; that he had born in China, of Chinese parents; that his father was a resident Chinese merchant in the Philippine Islands as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant.

    The board of special inquiry, after hearing the witnesses and seeing the plaintiff, denied him the right to enter for the reason that he was not the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, nor did he have the certificate required by law for the admission of Chinese. During the course of the opinion by the board of special inquiry, they said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The said Uy Po seeks admission to the Philippine Islands on the ground that he is the legitimate minor son of one Uy Kaan, a resident Chinese merchant. In the opinion of the board he (Uy Po) is in no sense of the term a minor and we place his age between twenty-five and twenty-seven, rather that twenty-one. He is a Chinese person who does not present the certificate required by law for the admission of Chinese and accordingly he is refused landing."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later the plaintiff was granted a second hearing, after which the board of special inquiry again denied him the right to enter the Philippine Islands, upon the theory that he was of the age of 25 or 27 years and was not a minor.

    An appeal was taken from that decision to the Collector of Customs and there affirmed. The Collector of Customs said, in the course of his opinion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "From an inspection of the applicant, his entire physical appearance is such as to lead to the conclusion that he is a mature person, upwards of twenty-one years of age, and not a minor child in any sense of that term."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. The case was duly brought in for trial. After hearing the respective parties, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario found that there had been no abuse of authority on the part of the department of customs and denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus.

    From the decision the plaintiff appealed to this court and made several assignments of error. The first and second assignments of error have been decided against the contention of the appellant so frequently that we deem it unnecessary longer to cite authorities in support of our conclusions. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error abused their power and discretion in refusing the plaintiff the right to enter the Philippine Islands.

    An examination of the record shows that the customs authorities reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not a minor. The record shows also that there was some proof upon which to base that conclusion. The customs authorities found that the plaintiff was more that 21 years of age. Whether or not he was a minor under the Chinese law is a question which is neither suggested nor discussed by the record. There being some proof to support the conclusions of the department of customs we must find, as we do hereby, that there was no abuse of authority.

    The plaintiff however, contends that even granting that he is 21 years of age, the decision of this Court in the case of Chua Yu Seng v. Collector of Customs (R.G. No. 9896 not published) gives him a reasonable time within which to elect his place of abode. There is a statement in the decision in said case (Chua Yu Seng v. Collector of Customs, supra) to support that contention. Whatever of the contention of the plaintiff now, must be considered as obiter dicta. That part of that decision which relates to Chinese children, not born in the Philippine Islands, is purely obiter dicta. It was not necessary to that decision. In that case the person seeking admission had been born in the Philippine Islands and the court only intended to apply the decision to him and to cases exactly analogous. In the present case the plaintiff was not born in the Philippine Islands, and there is nothing in the law which justifies, the court in extending to him the privilege of electing to take up his abode within territory of the United States within a reasonable time after reaching his majority.

    While the legitimate children of citizens of the United States and the Philippine Islands, when raised abroad, have a reasonable time within which to elect or reject the citizenship of their parents, after becoming of age, no right of election of any kind has been extended to the children of resident Chinese who have never become citizens of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. the law specifically limits the right of the children of alien Chinese residents to enter the territory of the United States up to the date of their becoming age, and in our opinion the right of election does not extend beyond that period.

    The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the case of Chua Yu Seng v. Collector of Customs, supra. In that case the plaintiff had been born in the Philippine Islands and was clearly entitled to elect his place of abode within a reasonable time after reaching his majority. In the present case the plaintiff was born in China, of Chinese parents, and had never been in territory of the United States. The board of special inquiry were of the opinion that he was nearer the age of 25 or 27 that he was the age of 21 years. Whatever is found in the decision of this court in the case of Chua Yu Seng v. Collector of Customs, indicating the right of Chinese children who have never been in territory of the United States to elect to enter the territory of the United States within a reasonable time after reaching their majority is purely abiter dicta.

    For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court, as well as that of the collector of customs, is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Trent, J., reserves his vote.

    G.R. No. 10729  March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 153




    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