Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

010 Phil 448:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4104. March 20, 1908. ]

JAO IGCO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, Respondent-Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.

G. E. Campbell, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. IMMIGRATION LAWS; CHINESE IMMIGRANTS; HABEAS CORPUS. — The laws relating to the admission and exclusion of Chinese are enforced by the customs officials in the Philippine Islands, and their decisions are final unless an abuse of authority is shown. (Rafferty v. Judge of First Instance, 7 Phil. Rep., 164; Ngo-Ti v. Shuster, 7 Phil. Rep., 355, Lo Po v. McCoy, 8 Phil. Rep., 343.)

2. ID.; PERSONS EXCLUDED; APPEAL. — An alien who is denied admission by the customs officials has no right of appeal until he has exhausted the remedies afforded by the executive branch of the Government. Administrative remedies must be first exhausted before resort to the courts be had. (U. S. v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S., 161; U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S., 253; Ekiuvs. U. S., 142 U. S., 651; Chin Yow v. U. S., 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 201.)

3. ID.; ID. — Immigration officers are not required to accept as true all statements presented to them, even though sworn to. (Chin Yowvs. U. S., 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 201.)


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This was an application made by the petitioner on or about the 18th day of September, 1906, presented to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the respondent, W. Morgan Shuster, was illegally detaining the petitioner; that the petitioner was the minor son of a Chinese merchant actually residing in the Philippine Islands. The said Court of First Instance issued an order directing that the body of the petitioner be brought before it and that the respondent be required to show by what authority he was detaining the body of the petitioner. The respondent on the 19th day of September, 1906, brought the body of the petitioner before the court, and gave the following as his reasons for the detention.

"That his (petitioner’s) right to lad had been inquired into by the immigration officers at the port of Manila thereunto duly authorized, and the decision of such officers was adverse to the right of the petitioner to land; that in consequence of such decision the said petitioner had been ordered deported to the place whence he came; that the alleged detention is only such as is necessary to insure the execution of the said order of deportation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the issue thus formed, the petitioner presented proofs in said court tending to show —

First, that he was a minor under 20 years of age:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Second, that Jao Quim Lo was his father;

Third, that his father was a merchant residing and doing business in the Philippine Islands.

It was admitted that the petitioner was born in China, and that he had never been in nor resided in the Philippine Islands.

During the trial the respondent presented proof to show

First, that the petitioner had made an application to the immigration officers of the Philippine Islands to be admitted, upon the theory that he was a minor son of a Chinese merchant residing in the Philippine Islands;

Second, that said immigration officers had found as a matter of fact that the pretension of the petitioner - to wit, that he was a minor son of a Chinese merchant residing in the Philippine Islands — was false, and that for this reason the petitioner was denied admission;

Third, that respondent presented an affidavit showing that the petitioner, on the 13th day of September, 1903, had made an application for entrance (more than two years previous to the present application) in which it was made to appear that he was then 22 years of age; that he was a merchant and had been doing business in the Philippine Islands for more than one year prior to the date (13th of September, 1903) of said application.

Upon the evidence presented during the trial of said cause the Court of First Instance found that the petitioner was entitled to the writ of habeas corpus and granted the same. From that decision the respondent appealed to this court, and made the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The court erred in issuing a writ of habeas corpus in favor of the Chinaman Jao Igco, who was detained for the purpose of being deported to China, after having asked for permission to land in the port of Manila, P. I., and who, after investigation made by immigration officials duly authorized, was declared not be entitled to land in the Philippine Islands, for which reason his entrance was denied and his deportation was ordered, all of which was approved by the Insular Collector of Customs.

"2. The court erred in not considering the conclusions and the formal part of the decision of the immigration officers duly authorized, on the question of the right of the Chinaman Jao Igco to be admitted in the Philippine Islands, as final and conclusive, such decision having been rendered by a court authorized to decide the said question, and it not having been alleged nor proved that said immigration officials had committed any abuse in this matter with respect to the discretionary power conferred by law, or that they had in any way made any error prejudicial to the right of the accused in the trial and judgment upon the matter.

"3. The court erred in declaring the said Jao Igco is a minor child of said Jao Quin Lo, and in ordering that said Jao Igco be released from custody and permitted to enter the Philippine islands."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appellee presented no brief in this court. The petitioner makes no allegation that he was not given a full hearing before the said immigration officers. He makes no allegation that he was not permitted to present all the proof which he desired to present upon the question of his right to be admitted into the Philippine Islands. He makes no claim that said immigration officers in any way abused the authority which was imposed upon them.

This court has decided that the laws relating to Chinese immigration into the Philippine Islands are enforced by the customs officials, and that the decision of such officials was final, unless it was shown that there had been an abuse of the authority imposed on them. (Rafferty v. Judge of the Court of First Instance, 7 Phil. Rep., 164; Ngo-Ti v. Shuster, 7 Phil. Rep., 355; Lo Po v. McCoy, 8 Phil. Rep., 343.)

An alien seeking admission into the territory of the United States, which admission is denied by the customs officials, has no right to appeal to the courts until he has exhausted the remedies afforded by the executive branch of the Government, and not them unless he can show that there has been an abuse of authority. The administrative remedies must first be exhausted before resort can be had to the courts. (U.S. v. Sing-Tuck, 194 U. S., 161; U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S., 253; Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S., 651; Chin Yowvs. U. S. 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 201.)

The mere fact that the immigration officers did not accept certain sworn statements presented by the petitioner as true would not of itself justify the court in taking jurisdiction of the cause upon the ground that that was an abuse of authority. Immigration officers are not required to accept as true all statements, even though they be sworn to, presented to them. (Chin Yow v. U. S., 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 201.)

Under the facts presented in the cause, the petitioner is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. The judgment of the lower court is therefore hereby reversed, and it is hereby ordered that the said applicant, Jao Igco, be remanded to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs, so that the order heretofore made by the customs immigration officials may be carried out, without any finding as to costs.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707