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
 

   
November-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10802 November 2, 1916 - RAMON REY v. FERMIN MORALES, ET AL.

    035 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 10959 November 2, 1916 - PRIMITIVA PARAS v. LUDOVICO NARCISO

    035 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 11049 November 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL FRANCISCO

    035 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 11263 November 2, 1916 - ELOISA GOITIA Y DE LA CAMARA v. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA

    035 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 10432 November 4, 1916 - JULIAN H. DEL PILAR v. MANUEL CATINDIG

    035 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 12118 November 6, 1916 - CATALINO GALANG v. VICENTE MIRANDA

    035 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 10620 November 8, 1916 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. v. W. T. NOLTING

    035 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 10967 November 8, 1916 - INSULAR GOVERNMENT v. BEHN, MEYER & CO.

    035 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 10646 November 9, 1916 - PEDRO CABIGTING, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO SAMIA

    035 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 9371 November 16, 1916 - FRANCISCAN CORP. OF THE PROV. OF SAN GREGORIO MAGNO v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MLA.

    035 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 12016 November 17, 1916 - JAO QUIM CHO v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE CITY OF CEBU

    035 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 12190 November 17, 1916 - HERMENEGILDO VELASCO v. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL

    035 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 11042 November 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. FELICISIMO BAGSIC, ET AL.

    035 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 11033 November 20, 1916 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL

    035 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 12054 November 20, 1916 - ISIDORO ALVENIDA v. PERCY M. MOIR

    035 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 11442 November 22, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MOROS LANDASAN, ET AL.

    035 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 11750 November 24, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL CATIMBANG, ET AL.

    035 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 12083 November 27, 1916 - NEMESIO CAMPOS v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL

    035 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 10072 November 29, 1916 - WILLIAM ABRAHAM KINCAID v. CAYETANO CABUTUTAN, ET AL.

    035 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 11915 November 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES ESTORICO

    035 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 11923 November 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DEL CASTILLO

    035 Phil 413

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 12016   November 17, 1916 - JAO QUIM CHO v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE CITY OF CEBU<br /><br />035 Phil 315

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 12016. November 17, 1916. ]

    JAO QUIM CHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE CITY OF CEBU, Defendant-Appellee.

    Fortunato Borromeo Veloso for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION; MINOR SONGS OF RESIDENT CHINESE MERCHANT TEMPORARILY ABSENT. — A minor son of a resident Chinese merchant who has been legally admitted into the territory of the United States as such minor son cannot be deported simply because his father is temporarily absent from such territory. The minor children of a resident Chinese merchant are permitted to enter territory of the United States without the section six certificate. The minor son of resident Chinese merchant legally admitted into the territory of the United States stands upon exactly the same footing as an other alien who may enter the Philippine Islands or the United States with or without the section six certificate. The Chinese alien who is lawfully admitted into the territory of the United States with or without the section six certificate may thereafter come and go of his own free will the same as aliens of any other country who may enter the territory of the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Law cannot be invoked for the purpose of keeping out of the Philippine Islands or of the territory of the United States, persons who have a right, under the law, to enter nor for the purpose of preventing actual bona fide residents of said territory from entering. It is an abuse of authority on the part of the Insular Collector of Customs to apply said Exclusion Law to said persons.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The question presented by this appeal is whether or not a minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, who has been legally admitted into the Philippine Islands, may enter again after a temporary absence abroad and while his parents are temporarily absent from the Philippine Islands.

    From the record made by the department of customs of the city of Cebu it appears that the appellant herein is the son of a Chinese merchant; that he is eighteen years of age; that his father was a merchant residing in the Philippine Islands, but had gone to China on account of sickness; that the appellant had resided in the Philippine Islands with his parents; that he had been admitted into the Philippine Islands as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant; that in 1911 he returned to China to pay a visit, with the intention of returning; the before he left the Philippine Islands in 1911, he went to the collector of customs for the purpose of getting a certificate and was informed that inasmuch as he was a minor, it was not necessary for him to obtain the same; that his father intended to return to the Philippine Islands when he recovered his health; that his father had been given a certificate of residence by the department of customs. Upon these facts he asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant.

    Upon said facts the collector of customs of the city of Cebu denied the appellant the right to enter the Philippine Islands. Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu. Upon a consideration of said petition and the return thereto, the lower court confirmed the decision of the department of customs and ordered the appellant deported. From that decision he appealed to this court.

    The fact is not denied that the appellant is a minor and the son of a resident Chinese merchant who was temporarily absent from the Philippine Islands; that he was permitted to enter the Philippine Islands as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant; that after having been legally admitted into the Philippine Islands he returned to China temporarily for a visit; that he made application to the department of customs at the time of his return to China for the proper certificate and was informed that said certificate was not necessary, by reason of the fact that he was a minor and the son of a resident Chinese merchant. It is not denied that his father had gone to China for a temporary visit on account of sickness and he intended to return to the Philippine Islands when cured of his sickness. The appellant having been once legally admitted into the Philippine Islands as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant can not be deported. (U.S. v. Tan Chuy Ho, 31 Phil. Rep., 383; U.S. v. Foo Duck, 172 Fed Rep., 856; U.S. v. Yee Quong Yuen, 191 Fed. Rep., 28; U.S. v. Lin Yuen, 211 Fed. Rep., 1001; Ex parte Lew Lin Shew, 217 Fed. Rep., 317.) Minor children of a resident Chinese merchant are permitted to enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate." The appellant herein was still a minor; his father was a resident Chinese merchant; and at the time the appellant was seeking to enter, his father was temporarily absent from the Philippine Islands, with the intention of returning. No claim is made that the father might not return to the Philippine Islands at any time without objection. The appellant having been legally admitted into the Islands without the necessity of presenting the "section six certificate," we are of the opinion that he stands upon exactly the same footing as any other alien who may enter Philippine Islands with or without the "section six certificate" and that he may enter and remain therein and may not be deported simply because his father, who has a right to return and to remain, is temporarily absent at the time he seeks the right to be admitted. (U.S. v. Li Sui Wun, 32 Phil. Rep., 151; U.S. v. Lee You Wing, 208 Fed. Rep., 166; In re Tam Chung, 223 Fed. Rep., 801; Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Rep., 24; Ang Qua Shi v. Collector of Customs, R.G. No. 8805, March 25, 1914, not published; Gan Bun Cho v. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. Rep., 614; U.S. v. Lim Kiu Eng, 31 Phil. Rep., 115.) The wife and minor children of a resident Chinese merchant may enter territory of the United States without presenting the "section six certificate." In the case of United States v. Li Sui Wun (32 Phil. Rep., 151), it was held that when a Chinese person is lawfully admitted into territory of the United States, he may thereafter come and go, of his own free will, the same as aliens of any other country who may enter territory of the United States. The wife and minor children of a resident Chinese merchant being able to enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate," they enjoy the same privilege of entering and departing which Chinese persons enjoy who present the "section six certificate." (U. S. v. Li Sui Wun, supra.)

    If the proof adduced during the hearing shows that the appellant had a right to enter the Philippine Islands, it was an abuse of authority, power and discretion for the department of customs to refuse him that right. In our opinion, the proof adduced, and not denied, clearly shows that the appellant was entitled to enter territory of the United States. (Ang Eng Chong v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. Rep., 614; U.S. v. Go-Siace, 12 Phil. Rep., 490; Muñoz v. Collector of Customs, 20 Phil. Rep., 494; U.S. v. Yu Kiao, 20 Phil. Rep., 307; U.S. v. Gue Lim, 176 U.S., 459; 83 Fed. Rep., 136; Vano Uy Tat Tong v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. rep., 480.)

    The Chinese Exclusion Law can not be invoked for the purpose of keeping out of the Philippine Islands persons who have a right, under the law, to enter, nor for the purpose of preventing actual bona fide residents of said Islands from entering. It is an abuse of authority on the part of the Insular Collector of Customs to apply said exclusion law to said persons. (Ang Eng Chong v. Collector of Customs, supra; Ang Qua Shi v. Insular Collector of Customs, R.G. No. 8805, supra.)

    In the case last-quoted we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That a wife of a resident Chinese merchant and her minor children, who had been admitted into territory of the United States and who had resided therein for a number of years, had a right to return to the Philippine Islands, after a temporary visit to China, whether they had gone with the idea of returning to the Philippine Islands, with the husband and father, notwithstanding the fact that the father had died in China during said temporary visit."cralaw virtua1aw library

    When a Chinese person has once been lawfully admitted into territory of the United States, upon a "section six certificate," he may thereafter come and go of his own free will. This rule is applicable to the wife and minor children of a resident Chinese merchant who may enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Attorney-General, in a carefully prepared opinion and relying upon the decision hereinbefore cited, recommends that the judgment of the lower court ordering the appellant deported be revoked and that he be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands. With that recommendation of the Attorney-General we fully agree.

    Therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the appellant be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands, and without any finding as to costs, it is ordered.

    Therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the appellant be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

    Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Trent, J., reserves his vote.

    Separate Opinions


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

    I dissent. I do not agree to the finding of fact that the father of the applicant left the Islands with intention of returning. There is no evidence of that fact except the statement of the applicant, which I regard, under the circumstances of this case, as verging on hearsay. An absence of five years from the Islands of an alien Chinaman, unexplained except by the statement of another, is evidence in support of the finding of the board of special inquiry that there was no intention to return, and that for that reason he lost his right to reenter or reside in the Philippine Islands.

    The foundation of the right of a minor son of a resident Chinese merchant to enter the Philippine Islands is the natural right of children to be with the father and the right of the father to their society and the right of control. That foundation disappears, and with it the right of both father and son, when the father is, at the time the minor seeks entry, in China without right to return to the Philippine Islands.

    The order refusing entry is correct.

    G.R. No. 12016   November 17, 1916 - JAO QUIM CHO v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE CITY OF CEBU<br /><br />035 Phil 315


    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