Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

059 Phil 727:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 40480. March 17, 1934.]

GABINO ABALA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Respondent-Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellant.

A. Hidalgo Rizal for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; IMMIGRATION; DEPORTATION. — The fact that a certificate of residence or permission to land or enter this country has been issued to a person is not a bar to his subsequent deportation to the place whence he came, if is later turns out that he is an immigrant who is not entitled thereto or that he succeeded in entering this country through fraudulent means.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The law imposes upon the person, who invokes the right of admission and entry into these Islands, the burden of satisfactorily and convincingly proving that he is entitled to such right. The customs authorities are not bound to present evidence to contradict or disprove an immigrant’s allegation to that effect. (Que Quay v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil., 128.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — The immigrant should base his claim on the sufficiency and efficacy of his own evidence; and it is a doctrine already established in this jurisdiction that the customs authorities are not required to accept as satisfactory and true in all cases statements made before them by an immigrant, relative to his claim. (Jao Igco v. Morgan Shuster, 10 Phil., 448; Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 24; Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, 42 Phil., 916).

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — Neither is there any merit in the argument that the appellee had an other occasions been acknowledged as a native of the Philippines to the extent that he had been granted permission to enter this country, the corresponding certificate having been issued to him by the customs authorities, because certificate of that nature do not constitute conclusive evidence that the possessor thereof is really a native of these Islands.


D E C I S I O N


DIAZ, J.:


The herein appellee returned to the Philippines from China on June 18, 1931. The customs authorities then denied him the right to enter these Islands on the ground that he was a Chinese citizen, notwithstanding his allegation that he was born in Cebu and had, in addition to his baptismal certificate, another to the effect that he had on previous occasions been permitted to land and enter the Islands. The customs authorities arrived at the above conclusion after conducting the necessary investigation wherein said appellee had been afforded full opportunity to prove his alleged right to remain in this country. A new investigation having been ordered at his request about two years after the first investigation had been conducted, the board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Customs again denied him the right to enter these Islands and the decision of the said board was affirmed by the herein appellant. The reasons which the customs authorities had taken into consideration in adversely deciding the question raised by the appellee, as above stated, were his failure to prove that he is a native of these Islands and the fact that not until after two years had elapsed did he know the names of his parents or that of any of their Filipino relatives.

The trial court, before which the case had been brought on appeal through habeas corpus proceedings instituted by the appellee, set aside the decision of the customs authorities holding that it had been rendered with abuse of their authority and discretion, thus sustaining the theory of the appellee that, inasmuch as he is provided with a baptismal certificate of previous admissions into these Islands upon his return from China, he was entitled to remain in this country.

In the case of Yu Pian v. Collector of Customs (58 Phil., 28); Ong Liengco v. Collector of Customs (58 Phil., 554); and Chua Go v. Collector of Customs (p. 523, ante), this court held, and it again reiterates the doctrine therein enunciated because it is applicable to this case and decides a similar question, that the fact that a certificate of residence or permission to land or enter this country has been issued to a person, as in the case of the herein appellee, is not a bar to his subsequent deportation to the place whence he came, if it later turns out that he is an immigrant who is not entitled thereto or that he succeeded in entering this country through fraudulent means.

The argument that there is no evidence of record to prove that the appellee through fraudulent means succeeded in entering the Philippines upon his return for his various trips to China, is of no consequence nor weight. The law imposes upon the person invoking the right of admission and entry the burden of satisfactorily and convincingly proving that he is entitled to such right. The customs authorities are not bound to present to contradict or disprove an immigrant’s allegation to the above effect (Que Quay v. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil., 128). The immigrant should base his claim on the sufficiency and efficacy of his own evidence and it is a doctrine already established in this jurisdiction that the customs authorities are not required to accept as satisfactory and true in all cases statements made before them by an immigrant, relative to his claim. (Jao Igco v. Morgan Shuster, 10 Phil., 448; Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 24; Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, 42 Phil., 916.)

Neither is there any merit in the argument that the appellee had o other occasions been acknowledged to be a native of the Philippines to the extent that he had been granted permission to enter this country, the corresponding certificate having been issued to him by the customs authorities, on the ground that certificates of that nature do not constitute conclusive evidence that the possessor thereof is really a native of these Islands. (You Fook Hing v. U. S., 214 Fed., 77; Lum Bing Wey v. U. S., 201 Fed., 379.)

Inasmuch as the appellee has not proven to the satisfaction of the court that he is the son of a Filipina and that he was born in Cebu, when it was incumbent upon him to establish such facts, and it appearing from the record, as the board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Customs which saw the appellee in person before it so found, that the said appellee has all the characteristics and appearances of a pure Chinaman, knowing no other language but Chinese, it is hereby held that the aforesaid board and herein appellant did not commit any abuse of their authority and discretion nor act arbitrarily.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the said appellee again be placed in the custody of the appellant, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 37986 March 1, 1934 - EUFEMIA MERCADO v. MUN. PRES. OF MACABEBE

    059 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36699 March 3, 1934 - HEIRS OF DATU PENDATUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 40468 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO M. SIOJO

    059 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 40512 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERFECTO TAYAG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 40592 March 3, 1934 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 40895 March 5, 1934 - TEOFILO HAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 37602 March 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 39633 March 7, 1934 - HENRY HERMAN v. LA URBANA

    059 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 38736 March 10, 1934 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    059 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 39209 March 10, 1934 - HIPOLITO ANDALIS v. LUCIA PULGUERAS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 39806 March 10, 1934 - LA URBANA v. SUSANA VILLASOR, ET AL.

    059 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 40309 March 10, 1934 - BERNARDINO QUITORIANO, ET AL. v. ROQUE M. CENTENO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 40327 March 10, 1934 - DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL. v. PNB

    059 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 39797 March 12, 1934 - FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN v. IRENE PAÑGANIBAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. 39679 March 13, 1934 - GENATO COMM’L. CORP. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

    059 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 39801 March 14, 1934 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    059 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 37671 March 15, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO RAMOSO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 40177 March 15, 1934 - LI SENG GIAP & CO. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    059 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 39389 March 16, 1934 - LUIS MIRASOL v. MARIA LIM

    059 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 40147 March 16, 1934 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO ITALIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 712

  • G.R. Nos. 339303-39305 March 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE KALALO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 39670 March 20, 1934 - ROSARIO OÑAS v. CONSOLACION JAVILLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 39799 March 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO NARVAES

    059 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 39681 March 21, 1934 - BONIFACIO LUMANLAN v. JACINTO R. CURA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 39883 March 21, 1934 - ODUS C. HORNEY v. SOUTHERN TRANS. & TRADING CO.

    059 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS

    059 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 39587 March 24, 1934 - ALEKO E. LILIUS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 40935 March 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APRONIANO DIAZ

    059 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. 40315 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO.

    059 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 40316 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. PANFILO SABELLANO

    059 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 40317 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. E. VESNAN

    059 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. 40319 March 27, 1934 - ESMERALDA VESNAN v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. 40425 March 27, 1934 - RAMON SILOS v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 36657 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 36701 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. ORIENT INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 37757 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

    059 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 39842 March 28, 1934 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO. v. MUN. OF IMUS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 39996 March 28, 1934 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. FERNANDO GREY, JR., ET AL.

    059 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 41433 March 28, 1934 - NATALIO AREVALO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 839

  • G.R. Nos. 36811, 36827, 36840 & 36872 March 31, 1934 - ANTONIO MA. R. BARRETTO, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 845