November 1912 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > November 1912 Decisions >
G.R. No. 6769 November 20, 1912 - SANTIAGO VANO UY TAT TONG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
023 Phil 480:
023 Phil 480:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 6769. November 20, 1912. ]
SANTIAGO VANO UY TAT TONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.
O’Brien & DeWitt for Appellant.
The Attorney-General for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CHINESE EXCLUSION LAWS; EXCLUSION OF CITIZENS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAW. — V. was born in the city of Cebu. P. I., on the 11th day of October, 1892, and had lived in the Islands since his birth except for about six months, when his father, by reason of ill health, took him and his two sisters to China. His father died in China shortly after their arrival there. He, together with other members of his family, immediately returned to the Philippine Islands. His father was a Chinese person. His mother was a Filipina woman. All of his relatives live in the Philippine Islands. When he left the Philippine Islands it was with the express intention of returning: Held, under the foregoing facts, that V. is a citizen of the Philippine Islands and entitled to remain therein, and it was an abuse of authority on the part of the Insular Collector of Customs to exclude him; following the decisions of this court in the cases of U. S. v. Go Siaco (12 Phil. Rep., 490), Muñoz v. The Collector of Customs (ante, p. 315).
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
On the 19th of October, 1909, on the steamship Rubi, Santiago Vano, of the age of 18 years, Matilde Vano, a girl of the age of 15 years, and Celestina Vano, a girl of the age of 10 years, arrived at the port of Manila and requested permission to enter the Philippines Islands. It is admitted that these three persons were born in the Philippine Islands and were brother and sisters and the legitimate children of the same father and mother.
The board of special inquiry found that Matilde Vano and Celestina Vano had a right to enter the Philippine Islands. Upon the application of the said Santiago Vano, the board found that he was a Chinese person and was therefore not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands. From that decision Santiago Vano appealed to the Collector of Customs, where the decision of the board of special inquiry refusing him permission to land in the Philippine Islands was affirmed.
Later Santiago Vano presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, which was denied and he was ordered to be remanded to the custody of the Collector of Customs in order that the judgment of the Collector ordering his deportation might be carried into effect.
From that decision of the Court of First Instance Santiago Vano appealed to this court.
It is claimed on the part of the appellant that he was born in the city of Cebu, Philippine Islands, on the 11th of October, 1892, and has lived in the Islands ever since his birth, except for a period of about six months, when his father, by reason of ill health, visited China, taking him and his two sisters mentioned above, with him; that his father died in China from said infirmity; that he and his two sisters, immediately after the death of his father, returned to the Philippine Islands on the steamship Rubi, or about the 19th of October, 1909; that his mother was a Filipina woman and had died some years before his father took him and his two sisters to China; that he had an older brother in the Philippine Islands, in the Province of Cebu, who was to look after him and his two sisters; that the only relatives which he has are residents of the Philippine Islands; that his father and mother were residents of the Philippine Islands at the time of the American occupation and had been for many years theretofore; that at the time he accompanied his father and sisters to China it was with the express intention of returning to the Philippine Islands.
He presents several recommendations, one signed by Mr. Gilbert, supervising teacher of Dumanlag of the Province of Cebu, in which he is recommended very highly as a student, together with the statement that he had been a student in the American schools of the Philippine Islands for a period of five years and had made very rapid progress. He also presents a certificate from the division superintendent of schools of the Province of Cebu, in which it is stated that he was a student and had completed the course of study for the fourth grade. He presents also letters of recommendation from the municipal president of the municipality of Malabuyog of the Province of Cebu, as well as a certificate of residence issued by the Insular collector of customs of the port of Cebu.
There can be no question about the identity of Santiago Vano. The foregoing facts are not denied. The only question presented to this court under the facts found in the record is whether or not he is a citizen of, and entitled to remain in, the Philippine Islands, even though he is of Chinese descent. That question has been decided by this court in the affirmative in the cases of U. S. v. Go Siaco (12 Phil. Rep., 490); Muñoz v. the Collector of Customs (20 Phil. Rep., 494); Roa v. The Collector of Customs (page 315, ante).
It having been decided that Santiago Vano was a citizen of the Philippine Islands, by virtue of his birth and residence, the Chinese Exclusion Law does not apply to him and an abuse of authority was committed by the executive department of the Government when he was excluded in the manner above indicated, and therefore the courts had a right to take jurisdiction of the cause by the means of an application for the writ of habeas corpus and to examine into and revise the finding of that department of the Government. The Chinese Exclusion Law can not be invoked for the purpose of keeping out of the Philippine Islands actual bona fide citizens of said Islands. It is an abuse of authority on the part of the Insular Collector of Customs to apply said Exclusion Law to bona fide citizens of the Philippine Islands. (Go Kiam v. The Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 7009 1; Ang Eng Chong v. The Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 7096 2; Loo Bun Hian v. The Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 7074. 3)
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of First Instance affirming the decision of the Collector of Customs is hereby reversed, and it is ordered and decreed that the said Santiago Vano be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands. Without any finding as to costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.
Carson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.
The board of special inquiry found that Matilde Vano and Celestina Vano had a right to enter the Philippine Islands. Upon the application of the said Santiago Vano, the board found that he was a Chinese person and was therefore not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands. From that decision Santiago Vano appealed to the Collector of Customs, where the decision of the board of special inquiry refusing him permission to land in the Philippine Islands was affirmed.
Later Santiago Vano presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, which was denied and he was ordered to be remanded to the custody of the Collector of Customs in order that the judgment of the Collector ordering his deportation might be carried into effect.
From that decision of the Court of First Instance Santiago Vano appealed to this court.
It is claimed on the part of the appellant that he was born in the city of Cebu, Philippine Islands, on the 11th of October, 1892, and has lived in the Islands ever since his birth, except for a period of about six months, when his father, by reason of ill health, visited China, taking him and his two sisters mentioned above, with him; that his father died in China from said infirmity; that he and his two sisters, immediately after the death of his father, returned to the Philippine Islands on the steamship Rubi, or about the 19th of October, 1909; that his mother was a Filipina woman and had died some years before his father took him and his two sisters to China; that he had an older brother in the Philippine Islands, in the Province of Cebu, who was to look after him and his two sisters; that the only relatives which he has are residents of the Philippine Islands; that his father and mother were residents of the Philippine Islands at the time of the American occupation and had been for many years theretofore; that at the time he accompanied his father and sisters to China it was with the express intention of returning to the Philippine Islands.
He presents several recommendations, one signed by Mr. Gilbert, supervising teacher of Dumanlag of the Province of Cebu, in which he is recommended very highly as a student, together with the statement that he had been a student in the American schools of the Philippine Islands for a period of five years and had made very rapid progress. He also presents a certificate from the division superintendent of schools of the Province of Cebu, in which it is stated that he was a student and had completed the course of study for the fourth grade. He presents also letters of recommendation from the municipal president of the municipality of Malabuyog of the Province of Cebu, as well as a certificate of residence issued by the Insular collector of customs of the port of Cebu.
There can be no question about the identity of Santiago Vano. The foregoing facts are not denied. The only question presented to this court under the facts found in the record is whether or not he is a citizen of, and entitled to remain in, the Philippine Islands, even though he is of Chinese descent. That question has been decided by this court in the affirmative in the cases of U. S. v. Go Siaco (12 Phil. Rep., 490); Muñoz v. the Collector of Customs (20 Phil. Rep., 494); Roa v. The Collector of Customs (page 315, ante).
It having been decided that Santiago Vano was a citizen of the Philippine Islands, by virtue of his birth and residence, the Chinese Exclusion Law does not apply to him and an abuse of authority was committed by the executive department of the Government when he was excluded in the manner above indicated, and therefore the courts had a right to take jurisdiction of the cause by the means of an application for the writ of habeas corpus and to examine into and revise the finding of that department of the Government. The Chinese Exclusion Law can not be invoked for the purpose of keeping out of the Philippine Islands actual bona fide citizens of said Islands. It is an abuse of authority on the part of the Insular Collector of Customs to apply said Exclusion Law to bona fide citizens of the Philippine Islands. (Go Kiam v. The Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 7009 1; Ang Eng Chong v. The Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 7096 2; Loo Bun Hian v. The Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 7074. 3)
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of First Instance affirming the decision of the Collector of Customs is hereby reversed, and it is ordered and decreed that the said Santiago Vano be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands. Without any finding as to costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.
Carson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.
Endnotes:
1. Not published; November 20, 1912.
2. Page 614, post.
3. Not published; December 12, 1912.
