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
 

   
October-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11813 October 6, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO SANTIAGO

    035 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 11512 October 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BINAYOH

    035 Phil 23

  • G.R. Nos. 11544 & 11545 October 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL I. SOBREVINAS

    035 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10662 October 12, 1916 - ENGRACIO LAURENCIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    035 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 11524 October 12, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    035 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 11549 October 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, ET AL

    035 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 11416 October 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAYNE SHOUP, ET AL

    035 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 11490 October 14, 1916 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR, ET AL v. COMPANIA GEN. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    035 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10439 October 17, 1916 - GAN TINGCO v. SILVINO PABINGUIT

    035 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 11226 October 17, 1916 - JOSE CASTILLO v. EULALIO BELISARIO

    035 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 11676 October 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES PABLO

    035 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 11451 October 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, ET AL

    035 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 8883 October 20, 1916 - FRANCISCA GONZALEZ, ET AL v. JOAQUIN GONZALEZ MONDRAGON

    035 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10169 October 23, 1916 - RUPERTO MONTINOLA v. JUAN TUASON

    035 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 10044 October 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. MARIA AGUILAR, ET AL.

    035 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 8703 October 26, 1916 - NAZARIO MARCELO v. CLEMENCIO MANIQUIS

    035 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 11589 October 26, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO ADOR DIONISIO

    035 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8160 October 27, 1916 - MARCOS DE LA CRUZ v. RAMON FABIE, ET AL.

    035 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. 10463 & 10440 October 27, 1916 - ROCHIRAM DHARAMDAS, ET AL. v. GOPALDAS HAROOMALL, ET AL.

    035 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 10596 October 27, 1916 - ANGELO ROJAS, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    035 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 11413 October 28, 1916 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDA SORIANO

    035 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 11439 October 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO ELICANAL

    035 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 11728 October 28, 1916 - MARCELINA CABUÑAG v. VICENTE JOCSON

    035 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. 11718 October 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO MACASAET

    035 Phil 226

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 10662   October 12, 1916 - ENGRACIO LAURENCIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />035 Phil 37

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10662. October 12, 1916. ]

    ENGRACIO LAURENCIO, 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. — The board of special inquiry created by the Collector of Customs by authority of law is authorized to inquire into the right of aliens to enter the territory of the United States.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONAL APPEARANCE AS PROOF OF NATIONALITY. — It has been decided in numerous cases that the department of customs may take into consideration the personal appearance of alien immigrants seeking admission into territory of the United States for the purpose of determining whether they are aliens or not, and its finding upon that question will not be disturbed by the courts, unless it is clearly proved that there was an unmistakable abuse of power, authority or discretion.

    3. ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS. — The department of customs in the first instance has a right to inquire into an pass upon the question of the citizenship of immigrants who seek admission into the territory of the United States. If an immigrant or any other person seeking admission into the territory of the United States shows beyond question that he is, in fact, a citizen of the United States or any of its territories, there would be an abuse of authority on the part of the department of customs to deny him the right of entrance.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff and appellant ins a citizen of the Philippine Islands and entitled to enter therein, or a Chinese subject and not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands. The board of special inquiry found that he was a Chinese subject, that he did not present the "section six certificate" required by law for the admission of Chinese into territory of the United States, and refused him the right to land.

    From that decision an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs and by him affirmed. Later, on the 29th of August, 1914, a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance, in which it was alleged that the plaintiff was being illegally detained by the Collector of Customs and that he was a citizen of the Philippine Islands. Said petition was duly answered by the Attorney-General representing the Collector of Customs.

    After a careful consideration of the issues presented, in relation with the record made by the department of customs, the Honorable George R. Harvey, judge, in a very carefully prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that the department of customs had not abused its power, authority, or discretion in denying the petitioner the right to enter territory of the United States, dismissed the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and remanded him to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs for deportation, with costs.

    It appears from an examination of the record that on or about the 11th of June, 1914, the petitioner arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Linan and applied for admission into the Philippine Islands as a native-born Filipino. The question as to his right to enter was referred to a board of special inquiry, which, after an examination of the defendant, together with the witnesses which he presented, found that he was a full-blooded Chinaman.

    An appeal from the decision of the said board was duly taken to the Collector of Customs who affirmed said decision. Later a rehearing was granted upon the request of the plaintiff. At the close of the second hearing the board of special inquiry again reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was a full-blooded Chinaman and denied to him the right to enter the Philippine Islands. Another appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs and the second decision of the board of special inquiry was also affirmed.

    Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance and after a full hearing a decision was rendered, as above indicated, denying the petitioner the right to enter the Philippine Islands upon the ground that he was not a citizen, but a full-blooded Chinaman.

    A petition for a rehearing in the Court of First Instance was granted, and the petitioner was permitted to present additional proof of his citizenship. After hearing the additional proof, the lower court found that it was merely cumulative and did not affect the conclusion theretofore reached.

    From the decision of the lower court ordering the plaintiff and appellant deported he appealed to this court and made eleven assignments of error.

    None of said assignments of error present new questions. All of the questions raised by the appellant have heretofore been decided by this court. The perennial discussion in the briefs of Chinese cases appealed to this court, with regard to the legality of boards of special inquiry, again appears in the brief of the appellant. That question has been decided against the contention of the appellant in numerous decisions of this court. And not only by this court, but its conclusions have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. (Chieng Ah Sui v. Collector of Customs, 22 Phil. Rep., 361; 229 U.S., 139.) In view of the numerous decisions of this court upon that question, and the fact that our conclusions have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, we deem it unnecessary to discuss that question again.

    The second question raised by the appellant relates to the failure of the immigration authorities to take into consideration the evidence presented to it. The personal appearance of the petitioner constituted the most convincing proof, in the mind of the board, that he was a full-blooded Chinaman and not a native-born Filipino. He was a man of twenty-seven years of age; his personal appearance, in the opinion of the board, outweighed all the other evidence adduced during the hearing. It has been decided in numerous cases that the department of customs may take into consideration the personal appearance of alien Chinese immigrants seeking admission into territory of the United States, for the purpose of determining whether they are aliens or not, and their finding upon that question will not be disturbed by the courts unless it is clearly proven that there was an unmistakable abuse of power, authority, or discretion. (Go Paw v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 278; Leong Guen v. Collector of Customs, 31 Phil. Rep., 417; Sing Jing Talento v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Rep., 82; Que Quay v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 128; Yam Ka Lim v. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. Rep., 46; Valdezco Sy Chiok v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 406; Guilo v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Rep., 100.)

    In the other assignments of error the appellant contends that the department of customs has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of the right of aliens to enter territory of the United States, who claim to be citizens thereof. The appellant contends that the question of citizenship must be tried and determined by the courts. That question has been decided in numerous cases against the contention of the appellant. (U.S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S., 253; U.S. v. Chin Yow, 208 U.S., 8; and the cases above cited.) Of course, if a person seeking admission into territory of the United States shows that he is in fact a citizen, there would be an abuse of authority on the part of the department of customs to deny him that right. (Ang Eng Chong v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. Rep., 614; U.S. v. Go-Siaco, 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; Ngo-Ti v. Shuster, 7 Phil. Rep., 355.)

    The error assigned by the appellant that the lower court did not examine the record of the testimony taken by the department of customs and the evidence introduced before it and render a decision thereon, but instead, contented itself with the finding that there was no abuse of authority on the part of the immigration officials, is not based upon fact, for the reason that the Honorable George R. Harvey, in his carefully prepared opinion, did, in fact, discuss all of the important questions presented to him.

    After a careful examination of the record brought to this court, we are persuaded that no error was committed by the lower court. Its judgment, therefore, is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 10662   October 12, 1916 - ENGRACIO LAURENCIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />035 Phil 37


    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